Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'american'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Volunteer Programs
  • Feedback and Support
    • Game Support and Bug Reporting
    • Player Feature and Gameplay Suggestions
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • External testing groups
    • Supertest Academy
    • Supertest
    • Clantest

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Discord


Twitter


Website URL


Instagram


YouTube


Twitch


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 36 results

  1. Afternoon, all. Just floating an idea for the celebrating the USS Texas' upcoming and much needed drydock excursion and overhaul work. Maybe a small series of Texas themed combat missions to earn the Texas flag/Come and Take it flag (or any other on theme flag, really,) and possibly the Texas flag camo? (Obviously that's more of a reach.) I think it could be fun and raise some awareness for the foundation about their upcoming challenges as they get the ship out of the water for the work. As I said, just floating the idea... let's see what the community thinks?
  2. hello, i was noticing that the superstructures of the yorktown, enterprise and honter are different. however she has observed that the enterprise has almost the same superstructure as the hornet. And well, I would like WG to apply those changes to the Enterprise so that it looks historic.
  3. Should new Premium carriers for tier 6 be made? I feel like they would be nice for operations, and crew training. I would like them to be strong but no ware as strong as lowenhart, bearn, and ark royal. Give them a gimmick with a good cooldown, and decent weaknesses for Balance. That can only be enchanced barely by crew skills.
  4. rafael_azuaje

    Hornet QUESTION 11.4

    hello everyone, checking the Hornet in the armory I see a negative change, its aircraft points dropped drastically, I have some screenshots of version 11.3 and now 11.4 where you can see the change. was it a hidden nerf? hopefully not! :( in version 11.3 the Hornet planes had 69 points. now in version 11.4 now it has 54 points, that is, it was a hard blow for the Hornet :(
  5. rafael_azuaje

    Lexington question

    I have a doubt. yes the lexinton was sunk in 1942. because she has better aa and better planes than the hornet and enterprise. the enterprise was never sunk survived WW2 , received many modern upgrades . and in the game it has everything old.
  6. my Idea is that WG change the Hull FDR to version 1950 and ADD tactics Planes as has the Hornet. the FDR is actuallity Clone of Midway, Sure the FDR looks Beast with new Upgrade Hull 50s.
  7. rafael_azuaje

    BLACK 666 HISTORICAL HULL

    Petition to WG. Rework the USS Black (DD-666) and add the historical hull (Same as chung-mu, not the rounded one) has better radars antenas too! captain's bridge looks diferent real.
  8. LittleWhiteMouse

    Premium Ship Review: California

    The following is a review of California, the tier VII American battleship. This ship has been provided to me by Wargaming for evaluation purposes -- I did not have to pay for this thing, which is a good thing because I would have felt offended had I shelled out money for this horribly mistreated piece of history. To the best of my knowledge, the statistics discussed in this article are current as of patch 0.9.5.1. Please be aware that her performance may change in the future. I'm not going to waste too much time on this review (she says, and then spends four whole days on it). USS California's inclusion in World of Warships bothers me on so many levels. I should preface this by saying that I love the American standard-type battleships. I think they are some of the most interesting warships of the Second World War. They are phoenixes that rose from the ashes of Pearl Harbor. Despite their outdated designs, they went on to not only find a role in the fast-modernizing US Navy but they went on to engage triumphantly in one of the final battleship surface actions in history. They could have just as easily remained a footnote in the war, left behind by fate. So, you can keep your Iowas, the romance (to me) lies in names like West Virginia, Tennessee and California. This is why I took issue with West Virginia appearing in her Pearl Harbor mien and not that of Surigao Strait. So imagine my disappointment when, against all advice, Wargaming stuck to their guns and pulled a copy-paste job of USS Arizona's performance and tacked it onto California. Now, let me be clear: Arizona, the tier VI American premium, is awesome. Lert really helped me appreciate the game play of the "American Bricks" way back in 2016. However, I do not love Arizona so much that I think cloning her game play and asking people to pay a premium price tag for a tier VII version is right. While California does have some minor improvements over Arizona, they are (in my opinion) inconsequential. I fear that these buffs will blindside people to what is nothing more than an already existing tier VI premium with a tier VII price tag. With that in mind, this review is going to myopically focus on the differences between Arizona and California and why one ship is worth the money and the other is a slap in the face. As much as I need a break right now, USS California is a big enough name to elicit sales simply merely by reputation. I know it. You know it. Wargaming knows it too. I want to head off any impulse purchases and warn players that they're not getting a ship worthy of California's name. Quick Summary: A slow American standard-type battleship with horrible gun firing arcs but improved long-range gunnery with her twelve 356mm guns. She has excellent AA firepower. PROS Fully submerged citadel. Heavy broadside of twelve 356mm/50 guns. Long ranged with a starting reach of 19.9km which can be extended to as much as 27.7km between upgrades and consumables. Decent gunnery dispersion with 1.9 sigma. Small turning circle radius of 640m. Excellent AA firepower, equivalent to a tier VIII American battleship. Good concealment with a surface detection as low as 11.8km. CONS Painfully long, 34.2s reload. 356mm guns lack overmatching ability against targets with 25mm+ extremities. Horrible gun handling and appalling gun firing angles. Very slow top speed of 20.5 knots and poor handling as a result despite her smaller turning circle radius. Overview Skill Floor: Simple / CASUAL / Challenging/ Difficult Skill Ceiling: Low / MODERATE / High / Extreme California isn't difficult to play. Picking her up and farming some damage is pretty easy. Were it not for her horribly slow speed, I'd have given her a 'simple' rating. All you really need to know are the battleship basics: use the correct ammo, beware of flashing your sides, try not to get left behind. California's speed is a severe handicap, but you knew that coming in. California gets no tools to seriously mitigate this. Long range is nice, so flex those aiming skills you've acquired, but her gun caliber and long reload will largely limit the impact this has. You can largely forget applying those brawling skills or getting to cap or even angling to mitigate damage -- it's just not applicable. There's a pretty hard cap on how far skill will take you with this ship. Options There's nothing too surprising about California's options. She conforms to the norms for American battleships. She doesn't get access to Aiming Systems Modification 1 to reduce her main battery gun dispersion. Instead, she has Gun Fire Control Modification 1 which increases her main battery gun range. Consumables California's Damage Control Party is standard for an American battleship. It comes with unlimited charges and an 80s reset timer. For US battleships, this is active for 20 seconds rather than the 15 seconds for other nations, so bonus there. Her Repair Party is also standard. It queues up 50% of penetration damage, 10% of citadel damage and 100% of all other damage types. Each charge heals a base of up to 14% of the ship's health over 28 seconds. She starts with four charges. In her third slot, you have the choice between a Spotting Aircraft and a Catapult Fighter. The former increases range by 20% for 100 seconds. It comes with four charges and a four minute reset timer. Her fighter is active for a mere 60 seconds (like all Battleship fighters) and resets in 90 seconds. It has three charges base and sends up a squadron of 3 planes. Upgrades There should be no surprises for anyone here. Build for survivability and fire resistance. Start with Main Armaments Modification 1. In the second slot, begin your fire resistance build with Damage Control Systems Modification 1. Most people are going to want to spring for more range for California and thus Artillery Plotting Room Modification 1 will seem optimal. However, once you get behind the helm of California and play with her (as I have), you'll come to hate her sluggish gun traverse as much as I do and Main Battery Modification 2 will look hella appealing. Damage Control Systems Modification 2 is your best choice for slot four, however, given California's ridiculously-poor fire angles, you will not be blamed for reaching for Steering Gears Modification 1 in order to help with rudder shift time to swing her butt out and back in between salvos. Commander Skills Time to re-use a graphic because battleship skill optimization has stagnated! Same old, same old. Build for fire-resistance first, then double back for your other skills. You probably want Expert Marksman over Adrenaline Rush on your first pass. Camouflage California has access to two camouflage patterns: Type 10 Camouflage – California and Freedom -- California. The two are merely cosmetic swaps of each other, providing the same benefits. You'll probably have to shell out some extra cash for the Freedom camo, whether that will be through a bundle or with doubloons after the fact. 3% bonus concealment from surface targets 4% increase to enemy gunnery dispersion 10% reduction to post-battle service costs 50% bonus to experience gains. Summary so far: Well, so far so good, I suppose. There's nothing out of the ordinary here. I dunno what's going on with California's turrets with her Freedom camouflage. Firepower Main Battery: Twelve 356mm/50 guns in 4x3 turrets in an A-B-X-Y superfiring configuration. Secondary Battery: Sixteen 127mm/38 guns in 8x2 turrets in superfiring pairs on either side of the ship facing fore and aft. Arizona & California's Main Battery Differences California has more range (19.9km vs 16km) California's AP shells do more damage (10,500 vs 10,300) California has a faster reload (34.2s vs 35s) California's AP shells have higher penetration. California's shells have higher muzzle velocity. California has higher sigma (1.9 vs 1.8). California has much reduced firing arcs (102º broadside vs 113º) California uses New Mexico's 356mm/50 caliber guns rather than Arizona's 356mm/45s. A lot of what's listed above owe to the differences of the gun calibers. Compared to New Mexico, California has increased range (19.9km vs 16.1km) and better sigma (1.9 vs 1.5) but again that horrible deficit in fire arcs (102º broadside vs 109º). So while California is an obvious gunnery upgrade over New Mexico, California is only a soft upgrade on Arizona. The biggest advantage here is her increased range with the rest largely being window-dressings. Calfornia does have a higher muzzle velocity and thus better AP penetration over distance. However this gap isn't quite as pronounced as the difference in speed would suggest as Arizona has higher Krupp, a coefficient WG uses to directly modify penetration values. California's increased rate of fire, higher shell damage and sigma are all nice but the difference is so minor as to be largely unnoticeable. California is a slow reloading, reasonably accurate 356mm armed battleship. The 0.8 second faster reload still does not make her feel like she has anything but a painfully slow rate of fire. The 0.1 sigma difference is imperceptible in game play -- you couldn't tell the difference if you tried. And finally, as nice as the extra damage is, these are still 356mm guns. Compared to the 380mm, 406mm and 410mm shells being thrown about by some of her tier mates, their individual shell performance is middling at best. Thus cutting through all of the crap, California's only significant change is her range increase over Arizona and she pays for this with truly appalling gun fire arcs. Observe: California has absolutely horrid main battery traverse rates, coming about at a glacial 60s for 180º. California has tier VI firepower with tier VII range. As much as I would like to be excited about her range, she needs it or the ship simply doesn't work. Wargaming will try and sell you this ship bragging that this reach is to California's advantage. Simply put, it's the only thing which makes this ship viable as a tier VII vessel and even then it barely passes muster. This ship is slow. Unlike Arizona which finds herself occasionally enjoying the 36km x 36km claustrophobic maps of lower tiers, California more often than not sees the 42m x 42km and 48km x 48km maps of higher tiers. That extra reach is an outright necessity to bring her guns into play before the battle moves on without her. Even then, it's often not enough. You can get a taste for this already by playing Arizona in bottom tiered matches and struggling to keep up with the pace of battle. California's reach partially mitigates this, but only partially. Her horrible gun fire angles necessitate that she swing out and show a lot more broadside in order to bring the weight of fire to bear on targets. This exaggerated manoeuvre bleeds speed (to say nothing of changing her heading and possibly navigating away from battle), further slowing her already ponderous pace. Thus her range becomes even more important. Are California's main battery guns better than Arizona's? Absolutely. Are they good enough to be tier VII guns? Sure -- they have better range and much better sigma than New Mexico's. The issue, though, is that they're not improved enough over the tier VI premium's to be worthwhile. Arizona's weapons are amazing at tier VI. California's weapons are only okay at tier VII. This means, gunnery wise, you're paying more money for a worse experience. This means for California to be worth her price tag, she's gotta make it up elsewhere. Once again, here are some dispersion tests. These are 180 shells fired at 15km locked onto the stationary Fuso bot. The bot was without camouflage. Unlike my normal dispersion tests, as Arizona and California can't equip the dispersion reducing ASM1 upgrade, their fields look comparatively larger than ships of the same tier. Shots are coming in from right to left with Fuso bow-tanking. One of these is California, the other Arizona. I'm not telling you which ship is which. If you're struggling to see a difference in as clinical and sterile a trial as this, you have no hope of feeling the difference through normal game play. In battle, targets are moving at different angles and speeds which makes any reasonable evaluation exceedingly difficult unless there is a tremendous change in performance. This is why I frown on a difference of 0.1 sigma being used as a selling feature -- it's a "spreadsheet" value that will affect a ship over the course of several games but isn't likely to be significant within a single match. A Missed Opportunity California doesn't make up for her main battery gunnery with her secondaries. California's secondaries are crap and they didn't have to be. Despite constant suggestions to give her improved accuracy and/or range on her secondaries, Wargaming wouldn't budge on keeping them standardized. These weapons are not worth upgrading any more than you would find it worthwhile to upgrade North Carolina's or Alabama's secondaries. California's AP penetration is okay. It's not high-velocity Soviet-good like Poltava's, though, nor does it have Duke of York's improved auto-ricochet angles (which shares the same penetration as KGV). Landing citadel hits against enemy battleships tends to fall off at ranges over 14km or so, but you should still be able to land penetrating hits through most belts you'll encounter. In theory, California has some pretty good AP damage output. She doesn't have boosted HE shell damage the way Japanese and British battleships do, so she's kind of lackluster there. That hurts given her inability to overmatch 25mm armour that's so commonplace within her matchmaking spread. Arizona sits just behind California in AP and HE DPM, but not so much that you'll notice in most cases. Summary so far: You're buying a longer-ranged Arizona. The 0.8s improved reload time and harder hitting AP shells are okay, but you can't feel the 0.1 sigma difference. However you're paying for the improvements with very crappy gun fire angles. Options: Nothing unusual, for good or ill. Firepower: Arizona with longer range, slightly improved damage output but much worse fire arcs. Durability Hit Points: 58,300 Min Bow & Deck Armour: 26mm extremities, upper hull and deck with some 31mm rear deck sections behind the superstructure. Maximum Citadel Protection: 35mm anti-torpedo bulge, 343mm belt and 44mm citadel wall. Torpedo Damage Reduction: 36% California's protection scheme is perfectly adequate for a tier VII battleship. It's comparable to Arizona's and they each have their strengths. California versus Arizona's Durability California has more health (58,300hp vs 57,200hp) Arizona has better anti-torpedo protection. No, really. (37% damage reduction for Arizona vs 36% for California) Arizona has better upper-hull armour. (Arizona has a strip of 37mm armour above her belt while California's upper hull is only 26mm). California has better deck protection (California's deck behind her superstructure and around her X & Y turrets is 31mm thick. All of Arizona's decks are 26mm). Overall, the ships are very comparable in terms of their protection and durability. While California has the slight edge in health, it pays to keep in mind that Arizona has a large hit point pool for a tier VI battleship while California is on the low side of average for tier VII. Tier for tier, Arizona is the better protected ship with her armour and hit points meaning more at tier VI than California's at tier VII. That 35mm anti-torpedo bulge covers a huge section of California's side. All things told, it's not bad for helping keep shells out (especially when angling). Her 31mm rear deck will help shatter small-caliber HE shells too, as will her 50mm armoured secondaries. Look at this chungus. This is a top-down view of California with her 343mm belt highlighted in red. You can see just how massive her 35mm anti-torpedo bulges are. Shells which fuse inside this bulge but outside of the hull spaces underneath result in zero damage penetrations. Here's a better view of how deep California's belt extends. The dark red is 343mm thick while the orange strip at the bottom is where it tapers to 273mm. In order to land citadel hits, shells must contend with her 35mm anti-torpedo bulge then her 343mm belt and finally her 44mm citadel wall. California's citadel (in yellow) is fully submerged well below the waterline. Short of adding a turtleback, it's as well protected as you could hope it to be. The most dangerous shots come from medium to long range where shells have a bit of drop going for them to strike beneath the waterline and angle towards the citadel. As good as California's lateral protection is, her big weak spot is her bow. Her stern is made up of composite layers of armour beneath the 26mm outer shell in a similar vein to Giulio Cesare's bow. It isn't anywhere near as vulnerable. But her bow? It's just the 26mm outer portion until you smack the transverse bulkheads protecting her citadel. They're not thick enough to keep battleship caliber shells out. Furthermore, that big 26mm area is just begging to receive hits from HE spam. California faces a lot more opponents that can easily best her extremity and deck armour -- not only with battleship caliber AP but also HE spam from cruisers with enough base penetration to out-muscle her structural protection. Once engaged at medium-range, there's really not much this ship can do about it short of trying to fight her way out. As we've already covered, she doesn't really have that much better of a chance of doing so than Arizona. California's protection scheme is decent for a tier VII battleship but it's nothing special either short of her anti-torpedo protection (which is good but not as amazing as the size of her bulges would suggest). She doesn't have improved heals like the British battleships. She doesn't have a nigh-impervious citadel like Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. She's missing an ice-breaker bow like the aforementioned German ships. The Soviets infamously have it too. Were it me at the helm of California's project, if improving her offense was off the table I would have done something here. There's lots of ways they could have gone about it, though I think the most elegant solution would have been to give her 32mm structural plate on her bow, stern, deck and upper hull, akin to a tier VIII battleship. She would have felt immediately tankier but still vulnerable to higher tiered ships. Oh well, missed opportunities. California's on the low end of average for her potential health. This isn't exactly welcome for such a slow brick with a big squishy snoot to boop. California has a boring ol' 14% healed over 28s, not the 16.8% of the KGVs and Hood, the 40% Nelson or even Colorado's 18.48%. It could be worse, I suppose. She could have ended up like Poltava with a max of 4 charges of heals. Summary so far: Worse protection than Arizona, tier for tier, but that's largely owing to a deficit of hit points as a tier VII battleship. Her protection scheme is otherwise fine though her snoot is a huge weak spot. Options: Nothing unusual, for good or ill. Firepower: Arizona with longer range, slightly improved damage output but much worse fire arcs. Durability: Comparable durability to Arizona even though she sits a tier higher. Agility Top Speed: 20.5 knots Turning Radius: 640m Rudder Shift Time: 14.7 seconds 4/4 Engine Speed Rate of Turn: 3.7º/s So, there are slow battleships in World of Warships and then there are the American premium standard-types. You see, the normal American tech-tree battleships have an artificial boost added to their engines -- they don't bleed speed like normal battleships do. It's akin to (but not a copy of) the UFO-style acceleration found on British cruisers and destroyers. However, the premium standards Arizona, West Virginia 1941 and now California, all lack this boost. They decelerate like normal battleships. This means the moment you touch their rudder, they dump their speed faster than a tweaked-out college student having their dorm inspected. The net effect is that though California has a 20.5 knot top speed, she's usually flirting with much less -- as little as 15.3 knots at 4/4 engine settings. Colorado at least manages 19.2 knots under heavy manoeuvres. The horrible fire arcs on California's guns will necessitate more manoeuvring to swing out her guns and then duck back which will only ensure she's stuck on the lower end of this speed. I have no idea why Wargaming didn't provide her with the tech-tree style energy preservation. This would have made her functionally as fast as Nagato under manoeuvres. So you can largely forget about getting anywhere fast. You can forget keeping up with the pace of battle. You can also forget about successfully kiting or disengaging when things turn sour. I think the real unfortunate detriment here is that it makes California more vulnerable to torpedoes. If you're trying to get from A to B as fast as possible, you're not going to want to touch your rudder. That just makes her easy meat for enterprising lolibotes. Ostensibly, California's range is supposed to help her here. She might not be physically present in the heat of combat, but her reach should allow her to at least offer some contribution while she lags way in the back. Summary so far: California's agility is absolutely appalling and worse than it had to be. Still, she's not far removed from Arizona -- like, the differences are barely perceptible. However, the larger map sizes makes this a lot more problematic. Options: Nothing unusual, for good or ill. Firepower: Arizona with longer range, slightly improved damage output but much worse fire arcs. Durability: Comparable durability to Arizona even though she sits a tier higher. Agility: An ever-so-slightly worse Arizona but now deployed on larger maps. Anti-Aircraft Defense Flak Bursts: 5 explosions for 1,400 damage per blast at 3.5km to 5.8km. Long Ranged (up to 5.8km): 137 dps at 75% accuracy Medium Ranged (up to 3.5km): 364 dps at 75% accuracy Short Ranged (up to 2.0km): 490dps at 70% accuracy So here's California's main selling feature. You get tier VIII American battleship AA firepower at tier VII. This is in contrast to Arizona which has like ... no practical AA to speak of. As far as gimmicks go, it's downright laughable in the current meta. This might have meant something back before the CV rework, but it's a joke currently. Before patch 0.8.0, the levels of AA firepower California puts out would have been formidable and worth celebrating. She would have been a meme the way USS Texas used to be down at tier V. Now such AA firepower is merely an inconvenience to CVs. While tier VI carriers have to respect your AA firepower they can still strike you. Furthermore, it's not going to put off a determined tier VIII carrier even for a moment. The best that can be said is that California won't be high on the enemy aircraft's priority list. However, she has enough problems already without considering CV strikes. I've sorted these ships by the formula I like to use (DPS x [range-1km]) to give a better, but not entirely accurate, impression of AA effectiveness -- the logic being that longer range AA is better than shorter range AA. Hood is listed without DFAA active, just know that the numbers shown here jump by 50% when she pulls the trigger. Nothing can touch California, though, which sits smack in the middle of the tier VIII American BB range, rubbing elbows with Alabama, North Carolina and everyone's favourite: Massachusetts. Summary so far: California has absolutely amazing AA levels. She's boasting not only tier VIII AA firepower at tier VII but good tier VIII firepower at tier VII. Unfortunately the state of the CV rework makes AA unrewarding and frankly useless at times no matter how much of it you have. This is a booby prize in the current meta. Options: Nothing unusual, for good or ill. Firepower: Arizona with longer range, slightly improved damage output but much worse fire arcs. Durability: Comparable durability to Arizona even though she sits a tier higher. Agility: An ever-so-slightly worse Arizona but now deployed on larger maps. AA Defense: Excellent and sadly irrelevant. Refrigerator Base/Minimum Surface Detection: 13.5km / 11.79km Base/Minimum Air Detection Range: 9.69km/ 8.72km Detection Range When Firing in Smoke: 11.71km California is very sneaky for a tier VII battleship. I wish this could have meant more than it does. This ship isn't likely to sneak up on anyone, mostly because it's patently unable to catch up to anything that doesn't want to be caught. At best, you might be able to setup an ambush and catch someone unawares but that's not likely to happen -- again because of that lack of speed. Ostensibly, this should allow her to disengage more easily by holding fire but let's not kid ourselves into imagining that she can escape pursuit. Without allies to road-block, California will be run down, sneaky or not. The final thing to keep in mind is that because of her long range, every time she pulls the trigger, she rings the dinner bell. This can be especially problematic if you've boosted her range and there are silly things like a bored Musashi or Champagne itching for targets. So California has good concealment! Unfortunately she can't really take advantage as well as another battleship might because of her slowness. Summary so far: California's concealment is meant to be her saving grace. With a base 900m advantage over Arizona, this is supposed to facilitate not only engaging the enemy but escaping from difficult situations. However, without it being paired with improved agility or durability, this bonus is merely nice to have, rather than ship-defining. Options: Nothing unusual, for good or ill. Firepower: Arizona with longer range, slightly improved damage output but much worse fire arcs. Durability: Comparable durability to Arizona even though she sits a tier higher. Agility: An ever-so-slightly worse Arizona but now deployed on larger maps. AA Defense: Excellent and sadly irrelevant. Vision Control: Better than Arizona by a lot, but she isn't able to take ready advantage of it. Summary: California vs Arizona California is a longer ranged Arizona with slightly improved damage output between better AP shells and a faster reload. Her improved dispersion via sigma will only be apparent over the course of multiple games rather than individual matches. She has greatly improved anti-aircraft firepower and she's more stealthy. However, she has very poor gun fire angles, horrible agility and no appreciable gains in defense all while being up-tiered to tier VII. The final difference is cost. Arizona will set you back the equivalent of 6,900 doubloons. California will cost you around 10,000 for a worse experience, tier for tier. It's worth being said: Arizona over-performs at her tier. She is a powerful tier VI battleship, so you might think my comparison unfair. California isn't broken, she's just not over-tuned the way Arizona is. And that's fair to say. However, for a consumer looking for the best bang for their buck, why buy California when Arizona is available? If you had to choose one, Arizona is the better purchase, hands down. What's more, California does not offer anything novel in the way of game play short of having better AA firepower. Are you really inclined to pay to play Arizona with worse matchmaking for the simple sake of being slightly less victimized by aircraft? Arizona is "long ranged" for a tier VI battleship once you install Gun Fire Control System Modification 1, so you largely duplicate California's schtick there too. California plays like Arizona but she plays less comfortably owing to her worse fire arcs and even more sluggish handling. I'm left to wonder what the point of California's design implementation as is. Rather than look for something new or novel, Wargaming played it safe. This might have worked had Arizona not been on offer -- California would have been more rightly compared to New Mexico and her strengths would seem obvious. "Ooh, 1.9 sigma with twelve guns? That's MUCH better than 1.5 sigma on New Mexico!" But again, Arizona is a thing. We already got that game play and at a better price and matchmaking. Hell, if you're a fan of PVE you get an even better deal with most scenarios now being limited to tier VI these days. With Arizona existing, Wargaming should have either retired the Pearl Harbor monument or dredged up something from their box o' gimmicks for California to compensate. California is a ship without game play identity. She is to Arizona what Alabama is to Massachusetts & North Carolina-- entirely forgettable and an unfortunate waste of money for worse game play. California is a beautiful port queen that doesn't live up to her fantastic history. It's such a bloody shame. This screenshot makes me sad. Once upon a time, seeing a ship with this much AA would have made me very excited. Now it's just a reminder of how much potential is wasted in the current meta. Final Evaluation Let's pretend Arizona doesn't exist. Is California worth it? No. No, she isn't. I love my standards -- I love them to death. But playing a standard-type battleship at tier VII or above needs to come with some pretty juicy perks or I'm not biting. The issue is their inflexibility. Once you start stacking on any other flaws and they just become unpalatable -- and California's gun handling and reload are some pretty wonky flaws, especially when paired with her slow speed. And she gains naught for these handicaps. The perks they gave her to compensate, namely good AA, nice range, good concealment and more accurate guns, don't cut the mustard for me. This is largely owing to what should be her main selling feature being laughable. Phenomenal AA power is watered down more heavily than American Lite Beer. Like American Lite Beer, the CV rework has a lot to answer for. It should be hella tasty and refreshing. Instead, it's so much thinned out swill with a rancid aftertaste, leaving you to wonder what could have been. California isn't fun to play and that's her greatest crime. If she can't be powerful, she needs to be interesting and she fails at that utterly. I'll play a shoddy ship back to back for hundreds of games provided she's fun (I've done it too -- I loved Atlanta before Surveillance Radar was a thing). I don't want to touch California. I'm constantly fighting with her rudder or her guns and she has nothing I value to compensate for it. Hard pass, ladies and gentlemen. California is a hard pass. Conclusion I was going to take a break after Siegfried and Agir's review was published. However, California's an important release and, more pressingly, I don't feel she's a good ship. Had she been strong, I think I could have just sat aside and let people discover that for themselves. But seeing how she was being released reminded me of why I write these reviews in the first place: To protect other players from making bad purchases. Wargaming burned me once too often in World of Tanks. If I can help others avoid that, I will. Now that said, with this high-profile release covered and my feels (hopefully) clearly broadcast, I'm taking some much needed time off.
  9. rafael_azuaje

    Kearsarge Questions??

    Where is the planes fight catapult?? he need your his planes figthers he is BB/CV hybrid. WG please ADD planes fighters for this ship! is of Logic>!
  10. I posted earlier a similar topic focusing on British CLAAs, now it is time for the American ones. Player 40902nd made a similar topic, but I tried to give a smoother progression to the line like avoiding aircraft facilites on board, while using one more comissioned ship compared to his proposal. Also I recommend you guys to take a look. https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/241880-proposal-usn-anti-aircraft-light-cruiser-line-redux/?tab=comments#comment-5518675 If you are familiar with Atlanta the gameplay would be similar, but to make the line different from the premium versions while not creating a cancerous gameplay experience for the receiving end, my suggestion would not give them reload booster, radar or smoke and instead give the tiers VI and VII a standard heal, while the tiers VIII-X a heal similar to Salem to compensate their low HP at higher tiers. That means a more shellfish gameplay, moving away from the utility the premium versions offer. Tier VI: scheme 1A - 1936, I didn’t find the source or similar designs, so for this one take a look at the other topic I posted in the intro. Tier VII: USS San Diego CL-53 (Atlanta-class) - 8340 tons full load - 32.5 knots, famous! Very important! (8x2) 5in/38 Mark 12; (4x4) 40mm Bofors; (13) 20mm Oerlikon; (4x2) 533mm torpedoes; Tier VIII: USS Juneau CL-119 (Juneau-class) - 8450 tons full load - 32.5 knots (6x2) 5in/38 Mark 12; (These can be balanced at tier VIII with a higher RoF to compensate the reduced amount of weapons and less of them not in superfiring positions); (7x2) 3in AA guns; Doesnt have depth charges like the Atlanta-class, ironically making her better to deal with submerged submarines, since she can call aircraft to strike instead of rushing the target; Tier IX: S-511-23 “8100 Ton 5” Cruiser Design study DP Design study - 9950 tons full load - 33.5 knots, Sejong from the Pan-Asia faction is a similar design in-game (8x2) 5in/54; Smaller AA guns not mentioned; (4x2) 533mm torpedoes; Tier X: CL-154 - 11950 tons full load - 34.5 knots, sister from Austin in-game (6x2) or (8x2) 5in/54 autoloading; (6x2) or (8x2) 3in AA guns; Tier IX premium: S-511-36 “6” AA cruiser scheme “C” - 4 twin turrets - 14400 tons full load - 33 knots (4x2) 6in/47 DP guns; Smaller AA guns not mentioned; Source for S-511-23 and S-511-36: https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/s-file/S-511-23.html https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/s-file/S-511-36.html I was looking for “Atlanta-prototypes” or possible AA coversions for the Omaha-class as AA cruisers, in a similar way the British did with their WWI cruiser designs, unfortunatelly I couldnt find any relevant information.
  11. LittleWhiteMouse

    Premium Ship Review - Oklahoma

    Massachusetts she is not. The following is a review of the tier V American premium battleship Oklahoma. This ship was kindly provided to me by Wargaming for review purposes; I did not have to pay for her. To the best of my knowledge, the statistics discussed in this article are accurate as of patch 0.9.10. Please be aware that her performance may change in the future. Unfortunately for Oklahoma, Texas exists. In nearly every respect, Texas is the better state ship. Oklahoma doesn't clone Texas' performance but gives you the choice of a "more different" alternative that dittos Texas' game-play with some style changes. Specifically, Oklahoma is an attempt to provide Massachusetts-style game-play at tier V, with improved secondaries though this comes at the expense of her reload times and horrible (HORRIBLE) AP shell performance. Quick Summary: A slow-firing American standard-type battleship with crappy AP shells but improved range, heals and secondaries. PROS Good main battery range of 17.13km (19.87km with APRM1) Secondaries are long ranged (5.5km) with improved dispersion. Small surface detection range of 13.52km. Improved Repair Party which heals back 18.48% of her health per charge instead of 14%. CONS Soft-skinned externally, with most of the ship covered by only 19mm worth of steel. Painfully long reload time of 40 seconds on her main battery,. Horrible AP penetration. Like seriously. Lacklustre AA defence. Sluggish and slow. Overview Skill Floor: Simple / CASUAL / Challenging / Difficult Skill Ceiling: Low / MODERATE / High / Difficult Battleships at tier V and below don't have it easy. They play on claustrophobic maps. CVs abound as do seal-clubbing torpedo destroyers. Furthermore, every single battleship can overmatch the bows of every other battleship (barring Gangut & Pyotr Belikiy), so you can't simply nose in and face-tank. The good news is that it's relatively easy to score some big numbers as everyone can reliably damage everyone else. Their primary prey, the plethora of light and scout cruisers, are made of citadels so Devastating Strike medals are commonplace and help offset the constant barrage of tier IV planes and constant waterboarding from torpedo-soup. And that's the joys when they're top tier! When bottom tier, they are outclassed so hilariously that the map size alone is enough to ruin their experience. So... yeah. Tier V battleships aren't in a good place. Inexperienced players can manage, but there's a lot of unpleasantness to watch out for. For veterans, Oklahoma offers nothing that Texas doesn't already, and Texas scales better with player skill with her dispersed armour values. Options Oklahoma doesn't have anything out of the ordinary beyond her Repair Party. Consumables Her Damage Control Party is typical for American battleships. It has a 20 second rather than a 15 second active period common to battleships from most other nations. It has unlimited charges and an 80 second reset timer. Her Repair Party is also an American battleship version, though this version doesn't tend to appear on premium battleships. It has four charges base and an 80 second reset timer. It queues up 10% of citadel damage, 50% of penetration damage and 100% of everything else. It heals back up to 0.66% of her health every second for 28 seconds instead of the usual 0.5% found on most battleships. Finally, Oklahoma has a Spotting Aircraft. It provides a 20% bonus to her range for 100 seconds. It starts with four charges and a 240 second reset timer. Upgrades There are pretty much two builds to consider with Oklahoma: Choose between either increasing her main battery gun range with Artillery Plotting Room Modification 1 or emphasizing the strength of her secondaries Secondary Battery Modification 1. Captain Skills You're again making a choice between two different builds. The first is the boring ol' battleship build where you focus on mitigating fire damage. Or you can build for her secondaries. With Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament having the efficacy wall at tier VII+, it's not worth taking. Veterans will recognize this build as being analogous for a classic Warspite build. This is a lot more interesting, in my opinion, even if it's less effective overall. The graphic on the left is the default battleship build. The one on the right is chock-full of pluck and awesome. Pick your favourite tier 1 skill (in green) and then hoover up all of the yellow circles. Camouflage Oklahoma has two camouflage options. The first is her standard Type 9 camouflage. They're simply cosmetic swaps of one another. They both provide: 3% reduction to surface detection. 4% increase to enemy dispersion. 10% reduction to service costs. 50% increase to experience gains. The alternative dark-blue on her Type 9 camo is nice and striking, but it's the military camouflage I like the most. Gotta love that checkered funnel!d Firepower Main Battery: Ten 356mm/45 rifles in an A-B-X-Y superfiring configuration with three-gun turrets for A & Y mounts and two-gun turrets in B & X. Secondary Battery: Ten 127mm/51 single guns in casemate mounts and eight 127mm/25 singles in open mounts mounted a deck higher. Main Battery In the spirit of not spending forever writing this, I'm going to cut right to the chase. There are two stupidly-huge flaws with Oklahoma's main battery guns. The first is pretty obvious -- they say it right on the tin: Oklahoma has a 40 second reload. That's terrible. It seriously hurts her damage output and it's just plain not-fun to have to wait so long in between trigger pulls. Admittedly, this isn't that much longer than the already painful 34.3s reload on USS Texas, but I hate that reload too and this is worse. If this were Oklahoma's only main gunnery flaw, maybe I could overlook it if this paid for a bunch of other fun stuff, but the ride doesn't end there. She has horrible HORRIBLE AP penetration values for a battleship. Oklahoma makes use of the old-timey, not-in-the-game-anymore stock New York AP shells. These are so terrible she cannot best battleship belt armour outside of 10km engagement distances -- and even then, there will be some battleships she can't best until she gets even closer. You must aim for weak points which, with battleship dispersion, is tricky. So not only are you dealing with a very long wait between shots, but when you're finally reloaded, there may not be anything worth shooting at because of how poorly her AP rounds perform. It's tempting just to spam HE, but USN battleship HE shells are pretty terrible. In short: Her main battery gunnery sucks moose-balls. It's a disaster to use against other battleships. Stick to picking on cruisers unless you have no other choice. Oklahoma's AP penetration of her released version (patch 9.10) is buttacular. This runs contrary to how it performed during the last leg of testing (patch 9.9). See my rant below with the In Closing section about this. Have a quick DPM graphic. Oklahoma wins no prizes here. American battleships aren't particularly good fire setters. Oklahoma's fire arcs are decent. Her gun rotation rate of 3º/s is pretty terrible, though. Secondary Battery Ostensibly the woes of her main battery armament are counteracted by her secondaries. Ostensibly. Sure enough, if you can get Oklahoma in close enough to activate her secondaries, her opponents are going to have a bad time. Oklahoma has the same improved secondary dispersion as found Massachusetts and Georgia. What's not as well known is that this is the same secondary dispersion as found on all large calibre secondary gun batteries, such as the 152mm on Kongo and Warspite. I don't say this to nay-say Oklahoma's secondary performance, but rather to illustrate that one element isn't so rare at this tier, as a lot of the casemate weapons of tier V battleships are larger calibre. This said, what is out of the ordinary is Oklahoma's range. With a base reach of 5.5km, between upgrades, skills and signals, it can be extended out to 8.32km which is very impressive for her tier. It's a shame Oklahoma isn't faster because you're only bringing those into range if the enemy comes to you. I found the volume of fire coming from her secondary batteries to be a bit wanting. Her longer-barrelled 127mm/51 guns in the lower casemates have a 7 second reload compared to the 4.5 seconds of the upper-deck 127mm/25s. On top of this longer reload, they also have a worse fire-chance per shell, so it's the shorter-barrelled weapons which are really carrying the weight when it comes to shell volume. At least her forward fire angles are generous with six guns being able to open up at targets as little as 10º off her bow, with a maximum broadside of 9 guns from 40º off her bow to 108º. These are not good weapons for kiting, as towards her rear-quarter she is typically stuck with only three weapons firing. Overall, I rate Oklahoma's secondary weapons as "nice to have" but not game-changers. They're definitely more powerful against lower-tiered targets where their 21mm of penetration can hurt everything they come across. I again lament that Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament's efficacy is tied to tiering, because super-accurate secondaries could have been a game changer for Oklahoma. While a 30% buff is alright, it's a big point sink -- points that could be much better spent on fire mitigation and concealment. Oh well. VERDICT: Her secondaries are nice. Her main battery guns are anything but. That reload sucks. That AP penetration sucks more. Defence Hit Points: 48,200 Min Bow & Deck Armour: 19mm extremities, 25mm upper hull & 19mm deck Maximum Citadel Protection: 25mm anti-torpedo bulge + 343mm belt + 51mm citadel wall. Torpedo Damage Reduction: 18% I was going to make an armour profile graphic, but it's pretty uninformative. She's a standard-type battleship (one of the first) so she doesn't have a dispersed armour scheme with interesting bits like extended waterline belts or what have you. Oklahoma's extremities and deck are all 19mm thick. Her belt is completely covered by her 25mm anti-torpedo bulges and this armour value extends up to that aforementioned 19mm deck amidships. Thus, barring her 13mm superstructure, everything you can shoot at on Oklahoma is either 19mm or 25mm, which is all kinds of squish. The downsides to this layout is having that 19mm armour almost everywhere. It can be overmatched by any battleship caliber AP shell you come across, to say nothing of allowing HE penetrations from even destroyer-calibre rounds. In this regard, she's hardly unique. New York and Texas suffer from similar problems, even with their dispersed armour scheme, but it's only found on the American battleships at this tier. All of the other battleships have at least some amidships deck armour values that are higher, allowing them to ricochet and shatter AP and HE shells respectively. Thus, Oklahoma takes a lot more incidental damage than her contemporaries. To compensate she has access to the improved Repair Party of American tech-tree battleships. This heals up to 18.48% of her hit point pool per charge instead of the usual 14% of most Repair Parties. In theory, this gives her a larger effective health pool if properly managed. The catch, of course, is that she has to survive long enough to make use of all of those healing charges for this to off-set her fragility. Her citadel is at least reasonably protected. It sits at the waterline with turtleback sloped sides. The 51mm of the turtleback and citadel walls stacks nicely with her 343mm belt giving her some healthy protection. Her citadel roof is 38mm thick so it can't be overmatched. Oklahoma will take citadel hits if you expose her sides but overall the protection isn't bad. Overall, Oklahoma'a durability is alright. It's not fun to take damage from everything being thrown at you but at least she's given something to compensate for it. Viribus Unitis is a standard unit of measurement for battleship health. VERDICT: You're a piñata with a soft outer-skin but decent citadel protection. Manage your heals carefully and be careful of exposing your sides. Agility Top Speed: 19.7 knots Turning Radius: 610m Rudder Shift Time: 13.4 seconds 4/4 Engine Speed Rate of Turn: 3.7º/s at 14.7 knots It's rare to see such an obvious and clear loser like this. This is downright embarrassing. Oklahoma manages to simultaneously be the slowest and the least agile of any of the tier V battleships. That's a pretty damning rap sheet right there but it gets worse. She lacks any kind of energy preservation. While New York was also stripped of her own improved energy retention in patch 0.9.6, Texas still maintains hers. This means that under any kind of manoeuvres, Texas is the fastest of the three, holding onto a minimum of 18.7 knots while New York flounders at 15.9 knots and Oklahoma wallows with 14.7. And you'll be putting her through manoeuvres often, if not to throw off the aim of your opponents then to try and counteract her horrible turret traverse. The 3º/s rotation speed of her guns often needs help and you'll be sore tempted to accelerate acquiring a target by swinging the ship's butt about. This has the net effect of further slowing down Oklahoma's average speed. The 19.7 knots you see on the tin is more like a constant 18.5 knots in practice as you're seldom going in a straight line long enough to take advantage of it, even when redeploying. Just to add insult to injury, even a slug-lord like Oklahoma can still out-turn her turrets unless you stack on Expert Marksman at a minimum -- Main Battery Modification 2 does not provide enough of a bonus to mitigate this disparity. For a ship reliant on making her secondaries count, it's not just her lack of speed that's disappointing, but her lack of energy retention too. She's not just slow, she's consistently slow -- unable to catch a break. The only way to make her secondaries work for her is to either corner someone when the opportunity presents itself on one of those smaller, low-tier maps or hope someone brings their ship into range for you. VERDICT: I cry everytime. Anti-Aircraft Defence Flak Bursts: 3 explosions for 1190 damage per blast at 3.5km to 4.8km. Long Ranged (up to 4.8km): 95dps at 75% accuracy Medium Ranged (up to 3.0km): 21dps at 75% accuracy Short Ranged (up to 1.5km): 84dps at 70% accuracy Aircraft carriers are omnipresent within Oklahoma's matchmaking. It is not uncommon to face two carriers -- and sometimes two tier VI carriers at that, so anti-aircraft defence is more important for ships at this tier than any other. I'm sorry to say that Oklahoma doesn't have good AA firepower by any measure. She has neither the damage-per-minute, range or consumables to truly be a threat to aircraft. She has about as much sustained DPS as König but with worse range brackets and one fewer flak bursts. This means you're going to get dunked on. A lot. In my test games, even a Langley to perform two drops with the same squadron of torpedo bombers -- and that's with my ship being pristine AND having my AA boosted with Basic Fire Training and focus-fire. Yes, I ended up shooting down a few planes. Yes, this will probably unsustainable for the carrier in the long run. No, that's not going to save you. VERDICT: Not good enough to matter. Sigh. With Oklahoma's uniform 19mm thick deck armour, she's exceedingly vulnerable to rockets and the bomblets dropped by Hermes and Ark Royal. Refrigerator Base/Minimum Surface Detection: 13.52km / 11.8km Base/Minimum Air Detection Range: 10.25km/9.23km Detection Range When Firing in Smoke: 7.12km Maximum Firing Range: Between 17.13km and 23.84km Oklahoma has better-than-average concealment for a tier V battleship. It's not god-tier by any means. It's not like Viribus Unitis where she can manage a 10km and change detection range. Still, make sure you use and abuse this concealment whenever you need to, especially in the later stages of the game when destroyers are thinned out. This can help you set up ambushing shots on cruisers or simply give you more time to come about or let a key consumable come off cool-down in order to save your ship when you're on low health. If Oklahoma had more speed, this trait would have more value, allowing her to flex unseen and pop up in places people do not expect. VERDICT: Nice to have but not game changing. Final Evaluation I'm glad you can earn this one for free. I don't like Oklahoma. Her gunnery is frustrating. Her agility is frustrating. She wasn't a fun experience for me. I hate waiting on her stupidly long reload. I hate having to wait even longer for a proper target to appear because my stupid AP shells can't reliably penetrate other battleships. I hate how stupidly sluggish her gun traverse is. I hate how slow she is. Hate. Hate. Hate. Sure, you can have some alright games in her, especially when she's top-tier. And in Co-Op, you don't have to worry about her AP penetration or struggling to bring her secondaries into range as the bots will oblige you by driving in close. In those two aspects, she's perfectly reasonable. But taken as a whole? Blech. Skip this one. Do not pay cash-moneys for her. That's my hot take, anyway. But lemme step away from quotable crap and elaborate further. I love American standard-type battleships. I love how they look. I love their history. And for the first few years of World of Warships' life, I loved how they played. New Mexico was my bae for a time. Lert and I had a great time playing our Arizona bricks side by side. I didn't mind Colorado, though she was my least favourite of the early three. I was disappointed when West Virginia appeared not in her late-war rebuild but in her 1941 state, adding my own voice to those dissenting Wargaming's choice to use her as a stock-Colorado instead of a phoenix that rose from the flames of Pearl Harbour and kicked so much butt at the Battle of Leyte Gulf. While West Virginia 1941 was at least a reasonably powerful ship, the offerings since then have not been. California was a disaster. She's been relegated to being one of the least memorable ships of 2020. Oklahoma is destined for similar ignominy. Her secondaries are meant to be fun, but there are so few opportunities to use them decisively. Had Oklahoma the old-style American battleship energy retention of yesteryear, it might be a different story. Like with West Virginia and California, Wargaming missed the opportunity to make a truly interesting vessel. Oh well. In Closing Before I conclude this review, I feel I need to speak to some of the challenges faced preparing these articles. My aim is to be as accurate as possible. While I don't feel that any of my fellow content creators would go out of their way to present false information, sometimes Wargaming makes it difficult for us to be accurate. The Community Contributors were told on October 22nd that Oklahoma had been finalized and that we were free to begin creating content which could be published on October 27th. I began work on the written portion of this review over the weekend of the 24th and 25th. Part of my process is to cross-reference the statistics of the current test-ship to the development blog's list of changes. Sometimes stuff gets changed at the last minute. Sometimes announced changes don't go through at all. Without clarification from Wargaming, it's impossible to know what the final product will look like. I've been burned by making assumptions here and I've learned to get specifics from Wargaming directly. In Oklahoma's case, the test-ship I had access to and was being asked to make content for was not what was going to be released. We were being asked to make content based on a ship whose performance was changing significantly post-launch. In Oklahoma's case, it was her Krupp rating -- a statistic which directly affects AP penetration values, which was being dropped by a whopping 40%. The 0.9.9 version of Oklahoma had better AP performance than any other tier V 356mm armed battleship. She could blow out the citadel of a Colorado at 16km. The launched version has the worst by far -- so bad she can't pull the same trick until she's within 5km of Colorado. This is a big deal! It completely changes how the ship feels to play. I didn't like Oklahoma's test version -- she was slow with a slow reload, but at least her main battery guns had some punch to them. Now I spoke to Wargaming about this and they were very open in acknowledging that the disparity between test-ship performance and release-ship performance is very much a serious issue when it comes to Community Contributors producing content about a ship. Steps are being taken to help mitigate any misinformation coming out in the future (how well this pans out will have to be seen). HOWEVER, the point I am making is that it's very important that when you're making buying (or time investment) decisions in regards to a premium vessel, check out multiple sources before pulling the trigger. This discrepancy was found in time for my review, but what about the other Community Contributors? More importantly, what did I miss? I'm not perfect. I don't have a team of fact-checkers dedicated to helping me spot things. I coordinate and collaborate with the other Community Contributors to try and find stuff like this but stuff will inevitably fall through the cracks. Please, please, PLEASE make sure you check out multiple reviews before you make a decision. You can always message me here or via Discord (AprilWhiteMouse#0536) if you have any questions about ship performance. If I don't know something, I will admit to as much and we can go find the missing information together. Thank you for reading, and thank you to my patrons on Patreon for supporting the production of these reviews.
  12. LittleWhiteMouse

    Premium Ship Review - Rochester

    The following review of Rochester, the tier VIII premium American heavy cruiser, was sponsored by my patrons on Patreon who helped me afford this ship. To the best of my knowledge, the statistics discussed in this review are current as patch 0.10.9. Quick Summary: Imagine a Baltimore-class cruiser with slight tweaks (generally nerfs) across all performance parameters and strip out her access to Surveillance Radar. In compensation, give her access to Defensive AA Fire and Hydroacoustic Search and a Smoke Generator consumable. PROS American/German 27mm hull extremities. Access to "American Piercing" AP shells with higher shell damage, penetration and auto-ricochet angles. Great gun fire angles, especially to the rear (it's about time I got to review another ship with these). Good anti-aircraft firepower for a tier VIII cruiser. Competitive concealment and decent stealth range while firing in smoke for a 203mm armed cruiser. Does not have to choose between Hydroacoustic Search and Defensive AA Fire. Has a Smoke Generator. CONS No health regeneration. Low DPM & fire setting for a pure-gunship heavy cruiser. Painfully slow turret traverse. Not terribly agile. No access to Surveillance Radar. Overview Skill Floor: Simple / CASUAL / Challenging / Difficult Skill Ceiling: Low / Moderate / HIGH / Extreme Rochester pretty new-fish friendly. Without Surveillance Radar to worry about, there's no reason to push in too close which may help reduce the amount of "death by over-extending". Furthermore, her good concealment and decent smoke-firing properties give her a comfortable buffer. Firing from smoke is pretty easy and Rochester makes it about as comfortable as it can get for an American heavy cruiser. Furthermore, the forgiving nature of 203mm HE and her AP auto-ricochet angles will take the sting out of sloppy ammunition choices. So good marks here. Her carry potential in the hands of an expert is a little more limited. Good knowledge of how to use and abuse islands will take you far, as will proper ammunition use. Abusing her concealment along with her 27mm bows can yield some pretty meme-worthy encounters against 381mm and smaller-armed battleships that keep trying to use SAP or AP against her at close range. But, while her Smoke Generator does have some team play uses (along with her DFAA and Hydro consumables), her lack of Surveillance Radar is dearly felt. She just doesn't put the pressure on destroyers like she should, not without some incredible risk taking. Options Rochester is defined by her consumables. Really, it's the reason you're buying this ship. So if this doesn't intrigue you, close your wallet now and skip to the end. Consumables Rochester's Damage Control Party is standard for a cruiser. It has unlimited charges, a 5 second active period and a 60 second reset timer. Her Defensive AA Fire is also standard for an American cruiser providing and additional 50% continuous damage and 300% flak damage for 40 seconds. Like many other American cruisers, it comes with a bonus charge to start (four total instead of the usual three) and an 80 second reset timer. The Hydroacoustic Search Rochester detects torpedoes at 3.5km and ships at 5km for 100 seconds. It comes with one fewer charge than normal Hydroacoustic Search consumables with only two (instead of three) but it has a standard reset timer of 120 seconds. Finally, Rochester has a Smoke Generator in her fourth slot. Like other American smoke consumables, this generates clouds for a full thirty seconds (which is good). It comes with two charges and a 160 second reset timer. The duration of each smoke cloud is a bit odd. She matches Anchorage's duration of 104 seconds which is decent, but not quite top grade. Here's some of the equivalent smoke duration times at tier VIII for Smoke Generator consumables. 124 seconds: American Destroyers, Loyang 104 seconds: Rochester & Anchorage 99 seconds: Edinburgh 89 seconds: Most destroyers, Mikhail Kutuzov 70 seconds: Lightning, Cossack, Z-35, Belfast '43 (these have very quick reset timers) 69 seconds: Z-23, Harekaze II 10 seconds: Italian Exhaust Smoke Generator equipped ships (these have longer emission time) The only other comparable values to consider are Flint (121 seconds) and Smolensk (89 seconds). I'll talk about this more in the Vision Control (Refrigerator for you old-timer readers) section below. But suffice to say, Rochester's smoke is pretty good. She makes a lot of it and it lasts a fairly long time. Upgrades Your choices here aren't anything revolutionary. The big decision here is whether or not to focus her upon camping in smoke or for more open-water manoeuvrability. Start with Main Armaments Modification 1. Generally speaking, Hydroacoustic Search Modification 1 is your best choice in slot two. It will cost you cost 17,000 in the Armory. If you cannot (or will not) afford that then default to Engine Room Protection. In slot #3, Aiming System Modification 1 is best. However, if her sluggish gun traverse ticks you off as much as it does me, you can sacrifice some accuracy for Main Battery Modification 2. This latter choice is more worth while in an open-water build if you plan to be actively wiggling and dodging. If you're planning to hug islands or camp in smoke primarily, then the extra acceleration provided by Propulsion Modification 1 is optimal. Still, there's a place for Steering Gears Modification 1 if you're planning to aggressively pursue a more open-water style of play. Finally, Concealment System Modification 1 is generally considered optimal because of the stacked bonuses of air, sea and underwater stealth AND the increased dispersion to incoming fire. However, if you're a smoke-hiding, island-humping pro, or just intent on once again going full-hog to the open-water route, then you can get Steering Gears Modification 2 instead. Commander Skills I haven't talked about heavy cruiser commander skills much since the (repeated) skill rework earlier this year. It's going to be difficult to do so without going on a prolonged rant, but here goes: Cruisers got screwed with the rework. While battleships had to spend more points to get the same features as before, I really don't feel like there's enough good choices for heavy cruisers to be worth investing into. If your ship doesn't need Inertial Fuse for HE Shells then you're kind of starved for compelling, competitive options. I would love to be able to say that this is a good thing; that you can pick among your favourites without much fear of losing in-game performance. But the rework didn't really add anything worth discussing to heavy cruiser game play. The most daring build would be to eschew any shell-performance buffs and dip your toe into trying to be an AA ship if you wanted. That's kinda neat, I guess, but AA performance isn't interesting anymore. It hasn't been since the 0.8.0 rework. It's a shame. For a 10 point, brainless standard build, go with: Grease the Gears at tier 1. Reasonable alternatives (in no particular order) include: Gun Feeder, Incoming Fire Alert and Last Stand. The extra turret traverse is best if you're going to grab Priority Target as I recommend at tier 2. If not, then Incoming Fire Alert goes way up in value. Priority Target remains my favourite tier 2 skill and I admit a healthy bias towards it. Alternatives include: Demolition Expert and our first AA skill: Focus Fire Training. With Rochester's reliance on smoke, it's a pretty simple choice to default to Superintendent. Adrenaline Rush and Heavy AP Shells are the best alternates. To no one's surprise, Concealment Expert is best at tier 4. Don't get me wrong, Radio Location is nice, but give us some variety please, Wargaming! The only other skill that vaguely interests me at this tier is AA Defence and ASW Expert and that's only if you're building an AA ship for the memes. Feel free to double back through the options here to mix and match for a build you find works for you. You really can't go wrong here, so don't sweat it. Camouflage You got one camo. It provides the usual: -3% surface detection +4% increased dispersion of enemy shells. -10% to post-battle service costs. +50% to experience gains. Rochester's default (pale) palette looks best in my opinion. You can unlock the darker version through completing the 5th tab of the American Cruiser Collection. Firepower Main Battery: 3x3 203mm/55 guns in an A-B-X superfiring configuration Secondary Battery: Twelve 127mm/38 guns in 6x2 turrets with one superfiring forward over the main battery forward, one superfiring aft and the other four divided evenly along the sides. American Piercing Rochester has comfortable if unimpressive firepower for a tier VIII cruiser. Her main battery of nine 203mm guns are unbacked by any other competitive assets with both her secondaries and her ASW airstrike both being entirely forgettable. For being Rochester's sole weapon system, there is an expectation of competitive damage output from them to compensate for the lack of any other. She kinda-sorta gets there with her improved AP shells. For those unaware, American heavy cruisers tend to have better AP shells than their contemporaries. Despite their low muzzle velocity, they have good penetration. This is joined by good damage values for their calibre and reduced chance of ricochets from angled armour. Grace of her Smoke Generator consumable, Rochester has the ability to cycle her guns more often than other American heavies -- she is not as reliant on making use of island cover to fire and stay alive. Let's reuse this older penetration graphic from my Anchorage (and earlier, Wichita) review. Anchorage and Wichita share the same AP penetration values. Rochester has the same AP penetration as Baltimore, which is among the best at her tier. At point blank ranges (such as the frequent jousts in co-op) Rochester has enough AP penetration to citadel through the belt of some battleships. Rochester pays for this ease-of-use granted by her smoke with a less-than-ideal reload time on her guns. While Baltimore and Wichita may cycle their weapons every 10 seconds, Rochester needs 12. This extra bit of wait is just enough to take the edge off the competitiveness of her weapons whenever she's using anything other than AP shells. Her damage output between fires and HE spam is comparable to that of Atago without the latter's ability to back this up with the occasional torpedo strike. As such, it's imperative to use Rochester's AP shells whenever the opportunity arises. Rochester can and will citadel just about any other cruiser it comes across at any engagement range if they present a broadside. She can even smack shells into their machine spaces when they angle thanks to that one-two combination of great penetration values and those improved auto-ricochet angles. The only issue with relying too heavily on AP rounds is the lack of fire-setting. I can't count the number of times I got a target low with AP and they successfully managed to disengage. A fire might have finished them off, you know, provided Rochester could stack one past their Damage Control Party. However, Rochester isn't good at this, being among the worse fire-setters at her tier. Charles Martel is listed twice. That with the asterix (*) is using her Main Battery Reload Booster for 15 seconds. Amalfi uses SAP instead of HE. Rochester's AP DPM is competitive while her HE DPM is not. Rochester's fire-setting ability isn't great -- especially when you appreciate that your actual chances of setting a blaze are roughly half of what you see here once you account for your target's innate fire resistance. She's comparable to Atago and most of the heavies pale in fire setting compared to the light cruisers. The best light cruisers have FPMs up near 16 and 17 blazes, but this gets butchered if they take the Inertial Fuse for HE Shells commander skill. Despite having a Smoke Generator, Rochester's game play does not stray very far from that already established by the American tech-tree heavy cruisers. This generally summarizes to: Find island. Peek from island. Cycle guns until you get their attention and hide until contact is broken / their attention goes elsewhere. Rinse and repeat this until it's time to push forward or fall back. The ballistics on Rochester's guns (especially her AP shells) makes her very comfortable in this role, allowing her to snuggle quite close to landmasses that will safely screen return fire from battleship calibre and higher-velocity rounds. In open water, Rochester doesn't fare so well. The same ballistics that make yeeting AP rounds over islands makes her long-range gunnery rather poor against anything but the most predictable of targets. Combine this with a slow rate of fire and every dodged salvo hurts that much more. But worse, Rochester's sub-16km range (with no way of increasing it) makes her dangerously vulnerable to return fire. Even with the comfortable over-the-shoulder fire angles, Rochester doesn't kite particularly well, having neither the speed, range or agility to pull it off. Add on the only modest damage output with anything other than AP broadsides and she's only a modest damage-dealer. So yeah, Rochester is just your typical American heavy cruiser when it comes to her firepower. The pair of wrinkles to keep in mind is that she has smoke to facilitate her slower reload. Yaaaaaaaas! ♪ It's too bad she doesn't pair this with some great turret traverse rates. Oh well. VERDICT: Comfortable yet ultimately unimpressive. Durability Hit Points: 41,900 Bow & stern/superstructure/upper-hull/deck: 27mm / 16mm / 27mm / 27mm Maximum Citadel Protection: 152mm belt (+27mm bows for head on shots) Torpedo Damage Reduction: 13% Rochester has a reasonable slug of hit points for a tier VIII cruiser, at least so long as you ignore her lack of a heal. While you might not feel this lack when she's top tier, against tier IX and X opponents, her inability to recover health becomes a serious handicap when every other cruiser (and many destroyers besides!) can claw back health. I can't talk about tier VIII cruiser survivability without addressing the elephant in the room: Repair Party consumables. Fully one-third of tier VIII cruisers have the ability to regenerate health and this creates a huge disparity between the survivability of those who can and those who cannot. Ostensibly, the balance is supposed to wors out. Those ships with heals are either extremely fragile (generally prone to giving away Devastating Strike medals to their opponents) or their damage output sucks, with the idea being that they need to survive longer (on average) in order to make up for the damage disparity. That only kinda works out in practice and these rules do not apply universally across all of the ships at tier VIII. This makes the lack of a heal feel much more pronounced on ships that go without when the difference of which ships have it (particularly legacy vessels) isn't clearly defined. Rochester is semi-okay without heals. I mean there are other ways to keep a ship safe and her Smoke Generator sure goes a long way to helping with that. However, it would be a mistake to think she's going to shrug off much in the way of damage. Her 27mm hull plating is nice but not as nice as it was, once upon a time. While she can still troll 381mm or smaller calibre AP shells by prompting ricochets with steep angling, with penetrating hits to turrets and barbettes now giving away damage, face-tanking isn't anywhere near as effective as it used to be. Thus, barring bullying the occasional Italian, German or British battleship at stupidly-close ranges, you can't count on her structural plate for repelling AP rounds. Her citadel protection is decent for a cruiser though nothing remarkable. Her citadel abuts against the exterior of the hull around her machine spaces and sticks up over the waterline besides. Her citadel roof cannot be overmatched, however, so you're only giving away citadel damage to shells that strike near or at the water's surface, so that's okay. Her 152mm belt also means she's proof against citadel hits from HE shells from enterprising Royal Navy battleships. She also has a pretty healthy numberof hit points, being in the top third for her tier if you look past healing potential. Finally, she does have at least some anti-torpedo protection, which is more than can be said for most cruisers. It's not really going to do much against ship or submarine-launched fish but it may protect you from some flooding from carrier-borne weapons. Rochester's armour profile is pretty straight forward for an American heavy cruiser. VERDICT: I wish she had a heal when she's bottom tier. Otherwise, she's okay. Agility Top Speed: 33 knots Turning Radius: 750 meters Rudder Shift Time: 10.5 seconds 4/4 Engine Speed Rate of Turn: 5.4º/s at 26.4kts Main Battery Traverse Rate: 6.0º/s Rochester's agility is very middle-of-the-road. If your cruiser can't be fast, you want to turn quickly. Rochester can do neither. I gotta give Rochester poor marks here. Comparing her to other cruisers, you can make the following claims about Rochester's agility: She's not fast. Her turning radius isn't small. Her rudder shift time is slow. Her rate of turn is sluggish. Being on the poor side of average has a lot of stacked detriments for a cruiser. The most effective combination for a cruiser is range and high speed -- this allows a cruiser to stand off at a distance where she can pummel enemy ships and give herself the maximum amount of time to avoid enemy fire. Even with horrible handling, high speed and enough range can make up for any other agility detriments to keep a cruiser in the game longer than it has any right to be. Rochester's downright pedestrian 33 knots doesn't provide that speed threshold needed and her sub-16km range doesn't tick the other box either. Now if you can't have that speed + range combination then hopefully you have a very tight turning radius and good rudder shift time. Up close, your reaction times to dodge are much reduced and unless you can change course and/or speed quickly, dodging fire gets that much more difficult. And here, again, Rochester falls short. Her 750m turning radius isn't appalling nor is her 10.5 second rudder shift time the worst we've seen (it is pretty bad, though), but neither hit the benchmarks needed to help her avoid damage. As a result, Rochester punishes you more than other cruisers for being caught out. Combine this with what I said earlier about the lack of health recovery and being in the wrong place at the wrong time gets her punished hard. It's very difficult to extract her when she over-extends and she's heavily reliant upon her Smoke Generator to band-aid misplays. Now, it really doesn't matter what the source of incoming damage is -- be it battleship shells, HE spam, torpedoes or an air-drop of some sort, Rochester just doesn't avoid things well. She's certainly better at it than a battleship, but not by much, all things told. Her reliance on her smoke kinda precludes her from making good use of rudder-shift upgrades (you'll really want the extra acceleration provided by Propulsion Modification 1). That, in turn, hurts Rochester's already mediocre open-water fighting ability. Add on her sluggish turret traverse and I'm not a fan of fire and manoeuvre in this ship. She can do it (all cruisers can), but she's not built for that kind of game play. It's better to stick to the American standbys of finding an island and making it your waifu interlaced with a bit of smoke play. This isn't a problem unique to Rochester by any means. Only Wichita, out of the American tier VIII heavies, breaks the mould. VERDICT: A whole lot of meh.. Anti-Aircraft Defence Flak Bursts: 5 + 1 explosions for 1,540 damage per blast at 3.5km to 5.8km. Long Ranged (up to 5.8km): 108.5dps at 90% accuracy (97.7dps) Medium Ranged (up to 4km): 353.5dps at 90% accuracy (318.2dps) Anything that doesn't specify whether it cannot or will always have DFAA has the choice of taking it, usually at the expense of relinquishing access to their Hydroacoustic Search. Rochester's As the meta stands currently, Rochester stands in contention for having the second-best AA power among the tier VIII cruisers (way) behind De Zeven Provincien. The Dutch cruiser is an AA powerhouse, and one of the few rare examples in the game after the butchering of the anti-aircraft interdicting cruiser role with the CV rework (more on that in her own review). Rochester's AA power is closely comparable to that of Cheshire. While she lacks the higher overall damage output of the British heavy cruiser, she has better range on her medium-calibre guns, allowing them to put out damage for longer. In addition, Rochester will always have access to Defensive AA Fire while the British heavy might not. This may sound like pretty high praise, but it's really not. Yes, Rochester has good AA firepower values for at tier VIII cruiser, but she's not a complete monster in this regard. Even with Defensive AA Fire active, she's still not reaching De Zeven Provincien's levels of sustained AA DPS. In practical terms, this means that a pristine Rochester, correctly played is all but untouchable to tier VI carriers. Fully specialized she can almost prevent tier VIII carriers from dropping. Tier X can still dump on her but it gets expensive fast. That may be enough to discourage carriers from even attempting to poke at her but in end-game situations with the game in the balance, I wouldn't count on being immune to high-tier carrier attacks. You'll have to Just Dodge™ like the rest of the plebs. VERDICT: Good as Rochester's AA firepower is, the AA interdiction cruiser archetype is still missing from World of Warships. Vision Control Base/Minimum Surface Detection: 12.06km / 9.48km Base/Minimum Air & Underwater Detection Range: 7.25km / 5.87km Detection Range When Firing in Smoke: 6.79km Maximum Firing Range: 15.86km So, here's the 11,300 doubloon question: Is it worth dropping a Surveillance Radar to get access to a Smoke Generator? Conveniently enough, this question has already been answered in another tech tree line. The British light cruisers allow you to swap smoke for radar from tier VIII+ starting with the Edinburgh. Generally speaking, Surveillance Radar provides more influence in a battle with the provision that you have team mates that will capitalize upon your spotting. Sinking destroyers early on wins games, after all. However, in solo-play, a Smoke Generator is the safer option. If you only have your own self to rely upon, then increasing your own survivability is the way to go. It's a bit of a fallacy to say that Rochester is just a Baltimore that drops radar for smoke. Rochester isn't a Baltimore-class cruiser. There's a lot of small differences between them that adds up quickly to disparities of performance, even before you swap out consumables. Thus, the question on whether or not smoke is worth more to radar between the two vessels is complicated. Specifically to this section of my review, Rochester has much better concealment than Baltimore. Rochester shaves a whole 540m off her base surface detection range. After all of the upgrades are applied, this shrinks to a 420m advantage which is still noticeable. Rochester sits towards the upper half of concealment within her tier and near the very top within her matchmaking. So her concealment is good and in select scenarios can even be abused to flex, attack or disengage as needs be without the use of her smoke. But even her use of smoke is remarkable as she has better concealment values while firing in smoke than Baltimore or Anchorage which are visible at 7.18km and 7.98km respectively compared to Rochester's 6.79km. Rochester isn't the first "sneaky" American heavy cruiser. We've seen all of this before in Wichita. She and Rochester share concealment values and I find her a better ship to compare Rochester to than Baltimore. Both Rochester and Wichita can make some pretty bold plays by using and abusing their stealth and then following it up with clever consumable use. However, I prefer Wichita's consumable combination for this, though. Surveillance Radar is my kinda jam as it lets me abuse lolibotes and smoked up cruisers in all kinds of hilarious ways that Rochester simply can't. Rochester's smoke is good, do not mistake me. It provides Rochester with a greater level of survivability than that enjoyed by most of the other American cruisers at this tier barring Congress. However, the ability to scatter the roaches is still preferable in my books, especially when a lot of what Rochester's smoke provides can be made up for with good use of terrain. Who needs smoke when you have an island waifu? VERDICT: Wichita-good, but not Wichita-great. I'd rather have radar. Anti-Submarine Warfare ASW Armament Type: Airstrike up to 5km away Number of Salvos: Up to two Reload Time: 90 seconds Aircraft: Two flights of two PBY Catalinas with 2,000hp per plane. Drop Pattern: 6 bombs each dropped evenly over roughly a 4km column Maximum Bomb Damage: 2,100 Fire Chance: 12% Rochester's air strike reticule with some ships for scale. The length of this column is roughly 4km. Hey, new section! Oh, how I wish I could take subs into the training rooms or populate them as targets. Rochester's airstrike ability is brand new with patch 0.10.9 and represents the bare minimum Wargaming will issue for anti-submarine warfare for those who have so far gone without. It's so new, I have barely time to do any testing of it short of derping bombs into open water because no subs are available to test against at the time I'm writing this. Anticipate anything and everything having to do with subs still to change significantly. So let's theory-craft a little. Note that Rochester's 5km range is where the strike starts,. The drop pattern covers approximately a 4km stretch with six bombs dropping per plane at fixed intervals with a left/right scatter, effectively allowing her to engage submarines up to 9km away. It takes 15 seconds from the time the airstrike is called for the first set of depth charges to detonate. The bombs themselves are listed as having a maximum damage of 2,100 but the reality is that like all submarine damage, this appears to follow a blast-style damage similar to that used by torpedoes, meaning there's a whole bunch of parameters modifying this damage that I don't yet understand. Don't even get me started with how this damage scales up with skills because I have no idea. The in port values jump up to 2,415 with all bonuses applied. Will that reflect in game? NO IDEA! It's a brave new world, people. At any rate, to engage submarines with Rochester, you're going to have to get pretty damn close which means taking an active role in order to do so. Barring submarines being stupid (please be stupid) this largely relegates Rochester's anti-submarine combat to late-game if it materializes at all. VERDICT: Still not ready for Random Battles. I do love me some PBYs. Final Evaluation Do you want a premium Baltimore? You're spoiled for choice. If you want a Baltimore that trades AP shell performance for stealth and agility, get Wichita. If you want a Baltimore that trades AP shell performance and radar for smoke and torpedoes, get Anchorage. If you want a Baltimore that trades radar for smoke and stealth, get Rochester. Rochester's strength here is that she more closely duplicates Baltimore's AP gunnery than Wichita or Anchorage and changes up the game play from team-based with Surveillance Radar to a more selfish style with her Smoke Generator. That's really not my cup of tea, so I'm not going to be playing Rochester much (if at all) after this review. Wichita is the more compelling choice for me; I prefer that aggressive style of play of providing vision and molesting lolibotes over Rochester's admittedly easier "angry smoke cloud" game play. This said, it's not like I'd be running out to throw money at Wargaming to get Wichita either. I'm not in the market for a premium Baltimore-class. Maybe you are. That's really all I have to say about Rochester. She's not terrible -- anything with smoke and not-horrible range is always going to be competitive. She's just not offering me the kind of play that I want. I had only modest success in her with no amazing games (rushing this review out precluded me from getting in only a handful of games to confirm her performance) but I'm certain that some players will be able to get some truly monstrous results out of her if people let her farm. Overall? I'm likely to forget about her before long. She's ultimately a very "safe" premium. There's nothing surprising here to trip up the developers when it came to balancing her or for tripping up consumers who bought her blind. She is exactly what you'd expect out of an American heavy cruiser premium. Thanks for reading. Mouse out!
  13. rafael_azuaje

    FLINT ! BUFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    * recently the flint cruiser received a poor range buff from 11.1 to 11.9k I mean nothing! and with a penalty of reducing -1 second .. why does this happen? if Atlanta did receive a good buff from 11.1k to 13.3. and without any PENALTY. why hate flint ?? * The Atlanta Class cruisers had better hull and deck armor. Deck: 1 + 1⁄4 in (32 mm), and ok not to put 32mm but go up those 13mm which are very horrible for its tier, to 20mm, at most 25mm his armor is very flan even a gun destroyer can easily deal great damage to atlanta / flint. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Atlanta_(CL-51) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Flint_(CL-97)
  14. rafael_azuaje

    Anchorage need buff

    I have the anchorage and in some battles I have observed, that it is half garbage, believe it or not. why?? ARMOR: this cruiser has armor very similar to FIJI (paper) the main guns a real disgusting, the reload is horrible 15.5 seconds. Baltimore can feel better armor than that of anchorage. Baltimore has the exact same guns and reloads in 10 seconds. AA: they are not useful, they are not useful, VS a Cv T6 will shoot down some planes, VS T8 CV, a single plane hopefully, VS CV T10 NONE. the damage that the anchorare repairs by aerial bombs is lethal for the cruise ship. TORPEDOS: it's the only thing that is decent about anchorage. SMOKE: it is medium useful, for example if it is inside your smoke, and a ship near you at 8K distance, that will make you 100% visible if you shoot, so it is not very useful. apparently the anchorage is version 1940, upload it to 1943 my advice: FIX reload main guns replace the 28mm MK1 with the borfors Add Defensive Fire AA in slot apart. North Carolina Shoot me to 20k Into smoke Baltimore does better battles
  15. Lexington-class battlecruiser I think this would be a very exciting option for a tier V-VII American Battleship. Here is a little info about it. Final Design SpecificationsDisplacement: 44,638 tons full load; 51,217 tons emergency full loadDimensions: 874 x 105 x 31 feet/266.5 x 32.1 x 9.5 metersPropulsion: Turbo-electric, 16 295 psi boilers, 4 shafts, 180,000 shp, 33.25 knotsCrew: 1297 (1326 as flagship)Armor: 7 inch belt, 1.5-1.75 inch deck, 5-9 inch barbettes, 5-11 inch turrets, 6-12 inch CTArmament: 4 dual 16"/50cal, 16 single 6"/53cal, 4 single 3"/50cal AA, 4 21 inch torpedo tubes (above water), 4 21 inch torpedo tubes (submerged) Concept/Program: A group of six large battlecruisers ordered in 1916 as fast "battle scouts", part of a large program of fleet scouting ships, which included many smaller cruisers and destroyers. These ships were essentially scaled up from contemporary cruiser designs, rather than scaled down from battleship designs, as was typical foreign practice. The ships would have been large and powerful, but poorly protected and thus vulnerable in battle. By 1921 the weaknesses of the design, and of the type in general, were apparently recognized, and consideration was given to either converting some of the ships to aircraft carriers or building new carriers using materials assembled for the battlecruisers. Ultimately all six were cancelled under the Washington Treaty, and two were completed as carriers. Class: Sometimes identified as the Constellation class, apparently because Constellation (CC 2) was the first to be laid down. These were the only US Navy ships to which the battlecruiser classification was applied. The designation "CC", which was not formally applied until the 17 July 1920 fleet redesignation, is thought to have been derived from "Cruiser, Capital", indicating their status as capital ships. Design: The original (1916) design for these ships was quite different from their final design. In 1916 the planned specifications were: 36,350 tons full load with 10 14"/50cal and 18 5"/51cal guns, very light armor, half of the 24 boilers located above the protective deck, and seven funnels. The entire program was suspended in 1917 to facilitate construction of merchant ships for WWI service. The class was completely redesigned 1917-1919, taking into account improved technology such as watertube boilers, foreign development of more powerful ships, the need for improved armor and anti-torpedo protection, and the lessons of Jutland. The resulting design was considerably better than the original version, but still relatively lightly armored. Why should the Lexington Battlecruiser be in the game as a regular ship and what historical and game play benefits does it add? The Lexington was meant to be part of the greatest battle fleet that never existed. This battle fleet was to consist of 6 ships of the South Dakota’s class with 4 triple mount 16.5” guns, 4 ships of the Colorado Class with 16” guns, 6 ships of the Lexington Class battle cruiser with 4 triple mount 14” guns, followed up by another nine battle ships from the Nevada, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and California classes with 14” guns. This Battle fleet would have been superior to any single battle fleet in the world, including the one ran by the Royal Navy. This fleet was never built due to the limitations of the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty that put a limit on the total tonnage of the Battle Fleets for the US Britain Japan, France and Italy. For the British this treaty was about not being out paced by the economic and industrial might of the US and it’s planned battle fleet it was building, for the US it was about limiting the size of the Japanese fleet to a manageable level to maintain control of the pacific. Given the fact that these ships were never able to be built how cool would it be to be able to play what could have been. The Lexington was not just a paper ship it was actually on order and partially built when it and its sister ship were converted to aircraft carriers the Lexington and Saratoga which went on to play significate roles in WWII. Another important factor for the Lexington being added is the many design changes and the different upgrades that can be associated with the ship class. “Like the South Dakota-class battleships also included in the 1916 Act, their construction was repeatedly postponed in favor of escort ships and anti-submarine vessels. During these delays, the class was redesigned several times; they were originally designed to mount ten 14-inch guns and eighteen five-inch guns on a hull with a maximum speed of 35 knots (65 km/h; 40 mph), but by the time of the definitive design, these specifications had been altered to eight 16-inch guns and sixteen six-inch guns, with a speed of 33.25 knots (61.58 km/h; 38.26 mph) to improve hitting power and armor (the decrease in speed was mostly attributed to the additions of armor).” Here Are just a Few of the Different looks from the redesigns With the level of design and redesign the sheer amount of historical documentation on this ships class would be massive, which could support the high level of historical accuracy of any WG recreation. The Lexington was order as a direct response to the Japanese Kongo Battle cruiser (which may be in the game). The design of the Lexington was heavily based on and an improvement of Britain Invincible class battle cruiser, which will most likely be added to the Britain line. Hopefully if we can get enough people interested in the Lexington Battlecruiser War Gaming seriously considering add this amazing ship.
  16. Some of us know of the American legend known as the USS Nevada. This is a battleship that started her life at the same time the Titanic sank, 1912. She was commissioned in 1916, and lived most of her life out at sea. She participated in several famous events, such as the bombing at Pearl Harbor, where she rescued the crew of the Arizona and escaped. Further more, she was the flagship at the Allies last push against the tyranny of the Nazi Reich, D-Day. Despite the punishment she took over her many years of service, Nevada could not be sunk. And when the US Navy had no need of her, she proved even a challenge for them, surviving two nuclear bombs, and a detonator withing her hull. It finally took the combined firepower of several US warships for 5 long days, and a single torpedo that was armed at point blank range before the Nevada finally succumbed to her wounds. Even in death, the USS Nevada sits upright 3 miles off the coast of Honolulu, with her 48 starred American flag, flying proud under the ocean's surface. Right, onto the part that 80% of you actually came here for, the gameplay concept! Please keep in mind, I am using the statistics from the World War 2 refit of the Nevada. Stats: HP - 65,000 Torpedo Protection - 40% Main Battery: 10 x 14 inch guns (3 x 2 turrets, 2 x 2 turrets) Reload Time: 30 seconds Secondary Battery: 12 x 5 inch/51 caliber guns (6 per side, single barrel turrets), 8 x 5 inch/25 caliber guns (4 per side, single barrel turrets) AA: 32 x 40mm Bofors AA guns (8 in 4 housings), 40 x 20mm Oerlikon cannons (Single barrel housing) Top speed: 19 knots Rudder shift: 16.5 seconds Equipment: Damage Control Damage Repair (It's like the British, but only with slightly less stats, 55%) Spotter Plane (No Fighter. This Spotter Plane has 4 charges, the cooldown is only 60 seconds without the Premium, but it only lasts 35 seconds) Reload Booster (Special type: Only increases the Reload time of Secondary Batteries) (Please note: This is a concept, so of course with your help, we can fix these stats at any time) The Nevada will be a unique ship, as it will be the first ship in World of Warships that will require you to own 3 other American Battleships that served alongside this legend, leading up to a special mission at the end. This is a four part mission, and will take quite a bit of doing to get this stubborn old gal of the American Navy. Requirements: Tier VII - Colorado Tier VI - New Mexico Tier VI - Arizona Mission 1/4: Deal 7,311,948 damage to U.S Battleships in the Tier VI New Mexico (Bonus points for those of us who got the reference. Give yourself a cookie.) Mission 2/4: Win and Survive in 6 matches in a row in the Tier VII Colorado (Divisions are allowed) Mission 3/4: Earn 4 unique medals in the Tier VI Arizona; 1 x Dreadnought, 1x Fireproof, 1x Devastating Strike, 1 x First Blood Mission 4/4: Join a Division consisting of Tier VI Arizona, Tier VI New Mexico, and Tier VII Colorado. Deal over 300,000 combined damage, sink 6 ships between you (That's as a team, not physically between you. Or do, I don't care), survive, and win the match. After completing all these tasks, you will then receive a key, which will unlock a special operation just for you. You may take any ship from Tier 6 to Tier 8, as long as they are of the US Navy. This mission will be named, "Showdown of the Fighting Spirits", and it's a 1 vs 1 match with a USS Nevada. That's right, you have to sink the USS Nevada to win. If you succeed, you will get the ship in your Port. Failure, results with you having to do Mission 4/4 again to get another key. I should mention though that the USS Nevada, like the Unique Captains you can fit to your ship, also comes with 3 Passive Abilities. Fighting Spirit: After being on fire for longer than 20 seconds, the HP you lost to the fire is repaired within 8 seconds. This ability only works once per battle. Tough As Old Boots: This ability activates after you lose half your health. You gain a temporary armor buff that increases all your armor by 10mm, and this lasts for 3 minutes. This ability only works once per battle. Final Detonation: (Brace yourself, this one's a doozy) After you're sunk, you emit a powerful AOE explosion that deals 5,000 Damage to enemy ships within a 7.0 km radius of Nevada. Further more, this explosion stays as a circle, similar to a smokescreen, though it doesn't offer any concealment. Instead, this sickly green cloud is filled with radiation, and any enemy ships that travel in it suffer a decrease in health similar to having a single fire onboard your ship. This radiation cloud lasts 2 minutes and 15 seconds. (This is a testament to the same radiation that Nevada was subjugated to when she took those two nuclear warheads and didn't sink.) I believe that with the help of the community, and maybe the attention of Wargaming themselves, we can rebuild this American legend in our game. And though it may be a long time before we can raise the Nevada from her grave, we should at least be able to appreciate her glory and her fighting spirit in World of Warships.
  17. rafael_azuaje

    USS WASHINGTON BB47 FOR WOWS

    Hello everyone, this beautiful battleship that existed for a short time was reviewed. It is beautiful with its dark blue almost black camouflage, it can be created in the game with the 1924 configuration, all original in T5, the most likely thing is that it does not carry dual purpose cannons, they would be minimum AA and a super structure similar to ships from WW1 . add it to the game but with the original configuration, the most recommended T5 since it does not have anything AA, and we are talking about a battleship with the configuration of 1924. I remember in 2015 when the colorado used 3 helmet and helmet A was from 1924, of course in T7 it was a nightmare so that helmet was removed, but it can be put in T5 with the premium washington. this is part of the history of the USA............ all upgrades from colorado 1945 - T7 the west virginian 1935 - T6 Washington 1925 - T5 Name: Washington Namesake: State of Washington Builder: New York Shipbuilding Corporation Laid down: 30 June 1919 Launched: 1 September 1921 Sponsored by: Jean Summers Struck: 8 February 1922 Fate: Sunk as target, 25 November 1924 Class and type: Colorado class Displacement: 32,600 long tons (33,100 t) Length: 624 ft (190 m) Beam: 97 ft 6 in (29.72 m) Draft: 30 ft 6 in (9.30 m) Speed: 21 kn (39 km/h; 24 mph) Complement: 1,354 officers and men Armament: 8 × 16 in (406 mm)/45 caliber guns 20 × 5 in (127 mm)/51 caliber guns 8 × 3 in (76 mm)/23 caliber antiaircraft guns Armor: Belt: 8–13.5 in (203–343 mm) Barbettes: 13 in (330 mm) Turret face: 18 in (457 mm) Turret sides: 9–10 in (229–254 mm) Turret top: 5 in (127 mm) Turret rear 9 in (229 mm) Conning tower: 11.5 in (292 mm) Decks: 3.5 in (89 mm)
  18. As many players of American Cruisers know, and those who like to shoot at them, Atlanta sucks now. Many players who are in the game now never even saw the days where Atlanta was at the very least decent. Now because of the added lines in the tech tree as well as what is now considered sub-par statistics, the Atlanta is nearly unplayable on its own. I used to love this ship. It was fun and unique to play. It eventually moved to a spot where smart players could dominate, and bad players would be punished. Now everyone who takes this ship into battle is punished. We now have many ships that play (and are inspired by) Atlanta, but due to how the power creep works, are much better even at their respective tiers. Belfast Smolensk Colbert Worcester The Tier VIII and above Japanese gun DD's Even Boise All of this ships have some added quality to them that make them better than Atlanta. Whether it's range, smoke, heal or something else.
  19. The_TrashPanda

    USS Atlanta tier 7

    How is the tier 7 Atlanta in this meta. I know it's still a paper ship and everything. But like how does it hold it owns against carriers. Also can i still hide just a few inches behind a island and shoot over any island in the game or did that get a nerf?
  20. I understand there's a lot of these ideas out ranging from an entirely different line from tier 3 to 10; however. Doing this makes it, no longer a split it would now be an entirely different line. What I propose is a split, starting at tier 5. AA armaments can be installed through a series of hypothetical loadouts. Tier 5: (Constructed design) Nevada Armament: 10-14 inch (356 mm) guns, (Original configuration) 21-5 inch (127mm )guns, (1930 refit), 12-5 inch guns, (1942 refit) 16-5 inch guns. Armour: 14 inch belt (13.5 to be exact) Speed: 21 knots Tier 6: (constructed design) Pennsylvania Armament: 12-14 (356 mm) inch guns, 22-5 inch (127 mm) guns, (1930 refit) 16-5 inch guns Armor: 14 inch armor belt, (13.5 inches exact) Speed: 21 knots Tier 7: (Paper design, though based on a constructed design) Proposal 40, Design 1913 Preliminary design of the Colorado (I understand I'm going to get a lot of fire, for having a paper design. I'm not going to use a Tennessee because I already have a 12-14 inch armed battleship at tier 6, no need to have another) (with hypothetical AA loadouts) Armament: 8-16 inch (406 mm) guns ,20-6 inch (152 mm) guns, (if given a 1940 hypothetical refit, would probably be given 16- 6 inch guns (most likely DP guns, dual purpose). Armor: 14 inch belt, (13.5 inches exact) Speed: 21 knots Tier 8: (Constructed Desgin) South Dakota The South Dakota was armed with 16-5 inch guns, instead of 20 unlike the rest of the class Armament: 9-16 inch guns (406 mm), 16-5 inch guns (127 mm) Armor: 12 inch belt (This is supposed to have more extensive protection than the North Carolina) speed: 28 knots Tier 9 (paper design) Tillman 3 or South Dakota (1920's) Either of these two designs could work as they both have similar armaments and protection. The armament shown here would be the top configuration for either one of them. (this would also have to be a hypothetical modern design. Armament: 12-16 inch guns (406 mm), 20-6 inch (152 mm) guns Armor: 14 inch belt (13.5 inch belt, exactly) Speed: (Tillman 3) 30 knots, (South Dakota 1920's) 23 knots) Tier 10 (Paper design) Tillman 1 The original Tillman 1 called for 21-5 inch guns, but the proportions I have will be only 20 guns and they will all be 6 inch guns DP. Since this is a Tillman its not entirely out of the question that it would be armed with 6 inch guns. This is going to be a hypothetical modern design. Note: that the main guns would be the Montana's MK 7s, so they would be equipped with the super-heavy type shells. Also, the secondary armament would be the Worcester's guns, as those are 6 inch and they are duel purpose. Armament: 12-16 inch guns (406 mm), 20-6 inch (152 mm) guns. Armor: 18 inch belt Speed: 26.5 knots (This could be increased to 27 knots, since it would be 27 knots if rounded.) I know I used paper designs but, reason for this is because I feel having 2 ships with 14 inch guns with the same number of them at tiers 6 and 7 is just I will get pictures up later Alright here's a premium suggested by someone else here. Premium Tier 8 (Paper design, though based on constructed one) Proposal 167B, Design 1917 This was a preliminary design of the Colorado, of course though 8-16 inch gun armament was selected over this one. (Note: the original design actually calls for 22-5 inch guns all in casemates, I've altered the original design to include 20-5 inch 38s there going to be in duel mounts DP. So, I added the letter B to represent the alterations done to the original design.) This is going to be a hypothetical modern design and like the rest of the line, its a secondary focused tanky line, main downside about this ship compared to the other U.S tier 8 premiums is that its slower. The armor scheme will be similer to Arizona with a turtle backed styled armor (well sort of ) Armament: 10-16 inch (406 mm) guns, (all duel turrets), 20-5 inch guns (127 mm, same guns as the Iowa and Georgia). Armor: 14 inch belt (13.5 inches to be exact) Speed: 21 knots Here are the photos, from tiers 5-10 then premium. Note: I selected the photo of the South Dakota 1920s, since both desgins are very similer to each other I chose the Tillman 3 to represent both of the two options I selected for the 9 position (just so there wont be a lot of photos discombobulating everything)
  21. I thought of a tier II competition of the mikasa, now people are going to be mad about this, let me remind you that this is a proposal USS Maine BB-10 Wows Tier II American Battleship Ship Specifications: displacement: 12,846 empty, 13,700 full Length: 393 ft 11 in (overall) beam: 72 ft 3 in draft: 24 ft 4 in Main Armament: 4 x 2 305 mm (12 in) /40 cal MK 3 Mod 3 Secondary Armament 1: 16 x 1 152 mm (6 in) /50 cal MK 6 Secondary Armament 2: 3-pounders 8 x 1 47 mm (1.9 in) Secondary Armament 3: 1-pounders 4 x 1 37 mm (1.5 in) Armor: *this class has both Krupp and Harvey steel armor installed in them* Main Belt: 203-279 mm (8-11 in) Turret: 305 mm (12 in) Casemates: 152 mm (6 in) (forward) Conning Tower: 254 mm (12 in) Mechanical: 16,000 hp x2 4-cylinder Triple Expansion steam engines x2 shafts speed:18 knots x1 rudder Turning Circle: 350 @ 10 knots Ship Range: 4,900 nmi (designed), 5,660 nmi (actual)
  22. rooster_007

    What is the best cruiser line?

    I'm going the american heavy cruisers, american light cruisers, and german cruisers. I do have an Atago and I was wondering what other line I should go up. Any suggestions?
  23. rafael_azuaje

    Black Ideas! Camo & Torps

    I have the Black and your his camo is very simple Not have color scheme, if WG ADD colos as Balck & orange, the torps are suck very slow for T9, better opcion is the MARK 16 from Fletcher, the destroyer SAMSON t2 HAS TORPS TOP SPEED 49K AND IS T2. the black T9 top speed 43k very slower.
  24. I've been testing the hill, and it has very poor hull armor, if you're attacked by rockets, you're fried .. projectiles from other DD do you a lot of damage, and it's been checked and the hull of the hill is basically the hull B of the FARRAGUT, they are exact with the difference that the farragut has better armor than the HILL, also if we compare it the NICHOLAS has better armor and HP than the HILL, it would be good to rejust the armor and Hp of the HILL. from rest the boat is good. compare armoreds DD: vampire T3 10mm as armor hill T5 o farragut T6 brothers hill 16mm nicholas T5 15mm hill t5 with amor T3 10mm clemson T4 13mm NICHOLAS GUNS & CONCEALMENT IS TOTAL BETTER NINJA HILL BOTTOM IS ALMOST EVERYTHING all DD lower Tier has Better armored thah HILL. please Wg UP armored hill... the torps are useless very slower & short range
×