Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'bb'.



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 75 results

  1. xtraBlood

    BB's citadels (and cruisers)

    Hello, Like the title suggests, which battleship line (and cruiser if you know) have the largest and most unarmored citadels?
  2. Hello, I got the Constellation from a SC A couple weeks ago, and I really enjoyed playing it. Now, I started grinding the IJN battleship line (I have Kongo right now) because I was told their battleships have very similar gameplay to the Constellation. (weaker armor, good dispersion). I've also heard that had the IJN line had the best dispersion out of all of the nations, and I want to know if this true? I have heard conflicting arguments on how other lines have better dispersion, ETC. Another problem I'm having (when playing both the Constellation and Kongo) is actually hitting the target. I mostly use AP shells on other battleships and most cruisers, but it doesn't seem to matter if I can't hit them. when shooting, I press ALT to see the shell flight time and aim accordingly, but I can only get 1-2 hits out of an 8 shell salvo. Is this normal? or am I burdening myself with too high expectations? Most of the time, I lead the shells perfectly and they fly towards the enemy ship's center, but I press Z after firing to watch the shells to make sure they are on target, and I feel like RNG hates me or something because most of the shells make an eclipse around the ship. I just wanted to ask you guys if A 25% hit rate is normal and if I'm doing something wrong. Edit: by ship I mean Battleship, which I like to aim at because they are bigger and easier to hit, but if I can only land 1-2 shells on battleships, I doubt I can hit cruisers or destroyers. I also try to target broadside ships, but to no avail. I forgot to mention that 1-2 hits means penetrations, and I usually get another overpen or nonpen to go with it. Edit 2: I was firing at a ship a couple games ago, (I forgot the ship name) and I got a lot of overpen ribbons when using AP shells, but nonpen ribbons when using HE shells. in this situation, what do you guys normally do?
  3. Hello folks, Having played as and against subs, and being a submarine fanatic, I have seen that the submarines are currently implemented poorly. The matches I play as subs are either 150k+ dmg matches where you butcher a helpless enemy team, or frustrating 0 dmg insta-deaths where you get annihilated by swarms of depth charge bombers. The current implementation has serious problems, and much of the community would rather bandwagon on the hate-train against subs opposed to actually offering solutions that satisfy everyone. I intend here to provide a conclusive solution that will satisfy all players, submarine enjoyer and otherwise. The solution to submarines is as follows: 1: Remove homing torpedoes and depth charge planes. Reasoning: Homing torpedoes drag the skill floor of submarines way too low, and allow subs to strike targets they definitely shouldn't be. For example, these homing torpedoes can counter DDs/cruisers sitting in smoke, submarines even partially countering DDs is extremely silly. As for depth charge planes; this means that BBs become the primary counters to submarines, I can definitely testify to this from personal experience. The design of submarines should be focused on how they fit into the game as a whole, BBs countering subs better than DDs is insane. DDs should be the primary counter to submarines, more on this later. All classes of ship should have access to simple depth charges, with DDs possessing the best (greatest quantity of depth charges released). 2: Refocus the purpose of submarines to be anti-CV. Reasoning: CVs are known for playing an extremely safe, passive playstyle with respect to their ships positioning and movement. They currently have no counter, submarines can fill this void. Giving submarines increased damage, even a chance to land citadel torpedoes against CVs ONLY. This increased damage potential will motivate many submarines to seek out CVs. People will often go where their most reliable way to get damage and citadel ribbons is, this is how you can motivate anti-CV play. 3: Allow nuance in play for submarines by changing how sonar works. The submarine should draw inspiration from the Spy from Team Fortress 2, a backline assassin with a few distinct methods of play, either super stealthy but only able to harass a few (albeit more reliable) backline targets, or super high risk high reward (less stealthy). Here is what I mean, the sonar ping and hydrophone consumable should both be removed in favor of a toggleable sonar. When the sonar is turned off, you are blind, but are far harder to detect, only able to see other submarines at extremely close range (where you can hear their propellers). This allows for a low-risk way for the sub player to sneak past the frontline and sneak to the backline where its intended targets are, CVs and sniper BBs. The alternative would be to turn on the sonar which would reveal the submarine to other submarines underwater from a significant distance (5-10 km depending on concealment). This offers a higher risk, high reward style of play, with the sonar having a long range detection of underwater ships, while a shorter range (~75% of underwater) detection of surface ships. The hydroacoustic search consumable should only find submarines who either have their sonars on, or are extremely close (where the propellers can be heard by the hydroacoustic instruments). 4: Change how submarine spotting works. When a submarine spots another submarine currently, if both of the subs are near the frontline, they both get descended upon by tons of depth charge bombers and often both die before they can even kill one another. After my suggested changes, the subs will now be able to duel properly if they so choose to by turning on their sonars. However a submarine being a hard to spot machine itself, it being able to spot everything better than a DD makes no sense. So rather instead of a sub being able to spot enemy ships with its sonar, it instead only spots the ships for itself (and possibly for friendly submarines). If the sub is at periscope depth or the surface, the spotting functions as normal, but comes with the downside that it is detectable by nearby surface ships. 5: Revert the dive timer back to the battery. This is a no-brainer, simply make the sonar consume battery when it is on. This would make submarine duels extremely interesting games of battery management, juking/3D positioning, and leading torpedo shots. I suggest allowing submarine torpedoes to arm much sooner, allowing for closer knife-fights underwater. 6: Make the different depths matter, and partially revert the diving ability. The 60m depth should make the submarine extremely hard to spot, and reduce/eliminate the damage from depth charges. The downside of this would be purely the agility of the torpedoes themselves. Torpedoes can only rise so quickly, so this would significantly limit the subs ability to deal with close range targets, and without guided torpedoes the long range targets are much harder to hit. This balances itself out. The periscope depth should, like a few submarine updates prior, allow for the recharge of the battery. As for the diving ability, to prevent abuse it is good to leave the surface and the periscope depths as preset depths where you cant feather in between periscope depth and just below it, however below a certain depth the diving/ascent shouldn't be constrained by preset depths, only having a maximum depth which can vary by the submarine (this wont be too much of a problem in submarine duels if my point #8 is added). 7: Reassert the DDs place as the submarine counter. DDs (and light cruisers to a lesser extent) should possess innate vertical sonar, giving a cylinder of detection directly below itself, perhaps about 200m in radius. This, coupled with my change to spotting, means that if your friendly submarine spots an enemy sub, your DDs will know the general area to start searching and should be able to find the sub quickly. This combined with being able to release a long chain of depth charges should scare many subs away from trying to meddle with the frontline, as usual they must take a high risk for the potential of a high reward. 8: (New mechanic) Allow for torpedoes to be aimed both horizontally AND vertically. This would simply add another axis to being able to launch torpedoes, this is so sub vs sub fights can allow for leading shots in all 3 axes of movement, since subs can juke by changing their depth. As stated previously torpedoes are only able to ascend/descend so fast, limiting the ability for subs to strike at surface ships from too deep down. I am convinced that submarines can be a fun addition to the game, where they also improve the health of the game by discouraging unfun playstyles. Should my changes be implemented, CVs will no longer be able to feel "safe" every single match, and be able to just sit in the back and send their planes out. This will force team coordination on the part of the CV (definitely a good thing), as should the CV wander too far away from friendly ships, they will easily fall prey to a sub. As a person who also enjoys CVs, I hate seeing CVs that just sit back and play it super safe all game. CVs should move up and act more as a part of a battlegroup. This to me is the most enjoyable way to play as and against CVs, as it gives a chance for more daring players to attempt to pierce the battlegroup and strike the CV. I believe that subs can definitely function as a counter to the CV/sniper-heavy meta we've been seeing for a while. Subs will make the backline an extremely dangerous place to be, and encourage more active play on all parts. Thanks for reading my ten thousand leagues of text.
  4. I Have Revamped and now have added onto this list some more ships but it is the same as the previous post for the most part so here are the ships: Tier 6 Cruiser HMS Arethusa a low effort premium as she's basically Leander with a superheal minus a turret (also basically an unnerfed chungking firing only ap) this is so called low effort as it doesn't entail much modeling as most of the base can be used from chungking aka her sister .She does not get HE to not end up being a reskinned Huanghe Tier 5 Cruiser HMS York Due to her Being the only British Heavy cruiser class not being able to be a tech tree ship due to Hawkins (which really should've been tier 4) she will become a premium and end up as the London to Exeter's Devonshire Tier 7 Cruiser HMS Dorsetshire Dorsetshire has a unique Playstyle for a British heavy cruiser as she doesn't have low main battery range and She doesn't Have to choose between Hydro and DFAA Tier 5 Cruiser HMS Enterprise Emeralds sister who will be using a novel twin mount up front with a superheal Tier 8 Cruiser HMS Birmingham To get the only post c/d class British Cruiser without the iconic knuckled bow shape I have added Birmingham. unlike most cruisers on this list She does not have smoke and instead has Main Battery Reload booster and Engine Boost or Radar and also has the same improved acceleration and Deacceleration like Dido. Tier 7 Heavy Cruiser HMS Suffolk Suffolk has the Same hull properties as Devonshire but has the same guns as surrey and is represented in her early 1941 Fit but unlike either cruiser she comes equipped with 16km range on her guns and radar with her hydroacoustic search and defensive aa fire in separate slots and ten kilometer torpedoes and has the same acceleration and AP shell properties as the British light cruisers and suffers from worst in tier plating like Indianapolis but not to the same extent Tier 6 Cruiser HMS Scylla The 'toothless terror' HMS Scylla is similar to her Pan Asian sister Rahmat in gun Caliber but has one less turret however she has normal torpedoes and the Same smoke as Leander with hydroacoustic Search unlike Dido. She has Some more hitpoints from having increased crew spaces for use as a Carrier Flagship Tier 6 Commonwealth Cruiser HMNZS Bellona unlike dido, Bellona has a shorter profile which makes her Stealthier at the cost of one turret which is augmented by better aa performance and the main guns being improved with faster traverse and reload speed and she shares the same consumables as Scylla with the exception being the crawling smoke generator. Tier 7 Cruiser HMS Sheffield The Legendary Cruiser, Sheffield will have smoke and hydro with Specialized Repair Teams to serve as a Captain trainer for the light cruiser line and would be in the appearance above to make it different from Fiji , Belfast and Gloucester who have more turrets but Sheffield fires faster at 6 seconds to compensate for less turrets. Tier 7 Cruiser HMS Gloucester To accompany Fiji in getting sunk off Crete at tier 7 is Gloucester .Gloucester comes with Smoke and a heal and access to HE shells but is in its as completed form so the aa isn't spectacular and there is no hydro to spot torpedoes in smoke and the heal is the same as Fiji's and the turrets fire slower at 9 seconds but Gloucester has better handling than Fiji as a compromise. Tier 8 cruiser HMS Swiftsure/ Commonwealth cruiser HMCS Ontario Swiftsure and Ontario are basically a Mysore with more health, better reload and torpedoes at tier 8 with one more secondary gun Tier 9 cruiser HMS Blake (Ignore the picture saying Hawke) Blake represents a Preliminary Design of the tiger class (Because the helicopter conversion wont be added) but doesn't completely look like the picture above, instead it has 3 4.5 inch turrets with two on the sides where the 3 inch mounts are on tiger 59 and the third is above Y turret and it has 3 Mk 24 turrets and quadruple torpedo tubes and it has a bit more health than tiger 59 and has the same consumables and stats but with Neptune's upgraded torpedoes unlike tiger 59. Tier 9 Cruiser HMS Defence A Draft Design in the series of designs that created the likes of Drake and Gibraltar Defence Joins the fray as something akin to a British Buffalo or Anchorage without Smoke alongside being basically Drake with 8 inch turrets which means it would look eerily similar to Neptune and Albemarle due to WGs Interpretation of the Admiral Class and she features AP rounds like Gibraltar and Canarias with access to Radar ,Hydro and DFAA with the Same Heal as Neptune unlike Drakes Improved Version Tier 10 Battleship HMS Temeraire The only Ship other than Cruisers in this proposal is Temeraire and it is the continued development of the lion Design postwar with the WGfication of it being a merge of two Designs to justify the Bigger Size compared to the Normal Lion. It takes the Size, appearance and armor of The Design A from the 1945 set of designs and most of the Specs of one of the 1944 designs. Here is it's Description: The last British battleship designed and laid down before the breakout of World War II. In many respects, the ship was a development of previous ships, she had greater dimensions, heavier armor, and modern 406 mm main guns. The Design was Modified in light of experience in the war and enlarged with additional AA defenses ,torpedoes and torpedo protection. Here are the features of Temeraire: Quick Speed at 33.5 knots stock and improved acceleration and deacceleration (35 seconds for full ahead and full reverse each) with good ruddershift Fast Reload reloading main guns that have Excellent Dispersion and Sigma and have the same penetration angles as Duke of York 4 Charges base of Specialized Repair teams and Engine Boost 2 sets of quintuple torpedo Launchers that can be Single Fired with excellent arcs of fire with good range and speed Fast firing secondaries Large Hitpoint Pool Short Range Hydroacoustic Search to avoid torps Here are the Drawbacks: Bad Armor plating only 27mm on the sides and 32mm on the deck Citadel is the length between the front and rear turrets and sits above the waterline, encompassing 50% of the armor belt High Detectability for a British Battleship and bad turning circle radius Big Deck area is vulnerable to fires Torpedoes can be knocked out at times if not destroyed. Slow Shells Bad HE fire Chance Tier 6 Battleship HMS Prince of Wales The Only of Her Class to Sink, Prince of Wales Joins the Game as a Stock KGV with Different consumables downtiered to tier 6 to accompany Repulse(lol). She Features Specialized repair teams like higher tier British battleships but also has a catapult fighter and engine boost like repulse and compared to her siblings she is stealthier but fires Slower but more accurately and has better secondaries and has improved acceleration and handling The 6 inch cruisers are rather Repetitive with the Sheffield, Swiftsure and Defence but the Ontario and Gloucester are unique as Gloucester is another take on a gimped Belfast while Ontario is a mid tier Commonwealth premium and despite being repetitive the other three are to fill different niches Sheffield for a t7 captain trainer , Swiftsure as a non town class/Belfast t8 premium alternative to Cheshire and tiger 59 and Defence as a tier nine premium which is something the British tree doesn't have aside from Marlborough and Temeraire Might Be too Strong or too weak lol please leave your feedback below
  5. Clear some things up (other than the disclaimer in the Sig.) Subs do belong in the game Just not like this... The current Development of subs is going backwards IMO.. Love the Sub Scenario when it premiered... My views are based on independent observation... The only caveat expressed is the "Fair play" doctrine... When play is no longer fair... Then the communities argument of WOWS, being a casino rather then a chess game of sea and digital boats... Well become more and more prevalent... Yes, I did watched the Sub myth busted twitch episode... Just because I know, doesn't mean I love the interaction presented... In a previous thread... https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/254753-subs/?tab=comments#comment-5748366 I posted this pic.. In that thread I called attention to how this 4km no mans land can be exploited by Sub players.. This exploit can be a match breaking... Mainly, BB drivers do not have a counter for these situations. As other noted in that thread... All you can do is turn tail and WASD to glory... Now here's a replay of the problem faced by BB drivers with this issue... In the Replay (20220507_210616_PASB518-Massachusetts_22_tierra_del_fuego.wowsreplay)... I knew where the SUB was Based on PING and last location on the Mini map... At close range, he was undetectable for A LOT of time... My options were Secondaries (they suck against subs) Guns (unable because the sub exploited the detection mechanic). RAM (unfortunate but yeah)... ASW planes (were moot/useless) Even though the SUB was the closer target... There was nothing I can do other then shot at a BB and cruiser... The replay starts and the end point is at the 13 min mark... The match itself was a lost cause... That's a minuscule detail considering the context.. If anything, a solution that is fair for both the SUB and the BB drivers must be devised... The current in game experience on the topic, is neither...
  6. Mordt

    BB vs BB

    How common is citadeling another BB while in a BB? I've been playing the Gneissanu and I've been getting some cits that I didn't expect. Like citting the Duke of York(once) at 12km... or the Sinop and the P. Heinrich(several different times) at 5-7km. So is it the fact that I'm playing the Gneiss, or these ships have meh armor, or is this normal?
  7. 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.
  8. Today, when I logged into the game, out of the blue, I got a 30% coupon from Wargaming. Noice. However, I have only around 2 or 3 days to use it. So I figured that since I like BB's, I shall get a BB. Because I am a PvE-only main, I figured I want something that I can use not only in Coop, but also in the Operations. That means Tier VI or VII ones. I actually don't play the Operations a lot, but I always like to keep myself open to jump in whenever I feel like. I really wish there were more of them though (who doesn't? LOL). Well, I already have all the Tier VI ones offered in the Premium shop, so that narrows my choices to Tier VII... since the Operation Narai is still a thing, you know, lel. As it turns out, I am missing quite a number of Tier VII BB's in my port. Namely, the ones in the thread title. Thing is, since I've been so focused on mostly playing German ships over the years, I am not too familiar with how these botes fare in PvE in general. At first, I thought of going for California, since it's also my home state. However, she's a slow-as-molasses USN standard, so... yeah. Florida? All I know is that she's a snipe-y glass cannon. Hyuga and Strasbourg have MBRB. Former has lots of guns, while the latter is speedy... that's all I know, lul. Yukon? All I remember about her is the controversy, plus she's some kind of a nerfed & down-tiered Tier VIII BB with REALLY stubby arms (i.e. short reach). Or maybe I should just get some doubloons, or something... lal. Thanks in advance, to anyone who gives a constructive advice... lol.
  9. Allow me to highlight the problem: I am TERRIBLE. Yes, that's the long and short of it. You all were able to help me out a LOT with Tashkent, I am hoping you might do me a solid for Bismarck as well. I read Pope's review - "drive it like you stole it" says he...and he's a good player, so maybe that works at his skill level. Here are my problems, in no particular order: 1. I cannot do damage worthy of a BB - in fact, I do comparable damage in Fuso... if Tier 8 != Tier 6 returns False = BB Captain is crap...or something 2. I cannot stay alive...at all...I eat damage from everything like a champ - torps, AP, HE, fires...so much damage...from everywhere....ahhhhh End Result: I die quickly, having done very little damage, pretty much every match. Bismarck is one of my absolute worst ships...like New York with less than 100 games played, no idea what I'm doing because WoWS is still new to me bad. Sadly, super limited bandwidth, so no replay to upload at present...working on it. I guess my questions would be: 1. What sort of positions should I be looking for? 2. How do I know when it's time to go "all in?" Title edited by Mezurashi.
  10. Like many solo-players who are tired of the salt and statistically-improbable consistency of utterly lop-sided teams in Randoms, I've taken to Co-Op for the peace and to grind missions in a happier (albeit slower) way. That said, I was just wondering if any other dedicated BB players (in Co-Op) are sick of no-Cap, no-Kill, Low-Damage, Low-Credit/XP matches because they are at best 1 of 3 ships on the board (often the only) with no torps and a speed at or under 30kts. Lately I've had countless matches where literally everything is Capped/Torped/DPM'd by teams 80%+ comprised of CL's/DD's/Subs and a CV or 2... it's not fun. Perhaps WG could balance the Co-Op MM ship-type distribution to ensure at least 3 BB's were on the map (even bots) so a decent earning match is possible for a BB player. Also, this would ensure at least a minimal enemy HP pool to make the match worth it for everyone. Thus far, Randoms continues to have some modicum of ship-type (if not Skill-Level) balance.
  11. CaptainRed_TheAngryBird

    ISE needs some help....

    ISE, while a good ship depending if you use her properly, needs some assistance when you take off in fighters or some sort of buff or situational awareness at least. Maybe for ship: buff the secondaries when planes are launched? Better concealment when planes are launched? and/or for aircraft: (only if you do not take the above options): Better Torpedeos? (Slightly faster. and maybe at least 3000 damage perhaps upgradable to 5000 dmg? Now dont crucify me for my ideas. The are ideas. Some ships need better work, especially premiums. Wargaming is not in a good position lately, and they are not going to be selling many premiums if they dont do something to make them worth purchasing or acquiring to begin with.
  12. DieForCapitalism

    Inspiring BB Game - Kongo V

    Hey all, long time player of DD here. Dabbled in cruisers and CV (after getting a zep in black friday container). Decided to mix it up and try BB. Played a game with the Kongo. All my shots missed - combination of dispersion, ricochet, bad aim etc. I absorbed 400k potential and my team won the game in 5 minutes total. Ended the game with 0 damage. 10/10 will slowly bumble around the map again doing nothing. Replay attached for proof of world record 0 damage Kongo. 20210708_174948_PJSB007-Kongo-1942_08_NE_passage.wowsreplay
  13. Pretty straight forward: Had to yank my NC Captain to move to USN CL line. I don't drive NC enough to want to grind another Captain for her. I have 19 point DM and Monty Captains ready, which T8 USN premium BB should I get to replace NC? What sucks is that NC is the better ship, right?
  14. Kokomi_Sangonomiya

    Hyuuga appreciation video

    Please subscribe i'm really sad :)
  15. To whom it may concern: I just played a battle in my T10 Montana and couldn't even believe my eyes. I block one side of my ship with an island so I can focus on the enemy ships that are rounding out in front of me when all a sudden I see a torpedo air squadron coming at me from the side of the ship protected by the island. At first, I don't worry about it too much as that side is protected (or so I thought as it would be in real life) by the island. But no due to either crappy programming in the game or just another flaw to make carriers better than they should be I watch to my horror as the squadron drops three torpedo's on the opposite side of the island and they magically pass under the island and become active just in time to take away over half my health!!! This is some of the very cancer in this game that makes it unbearable to play at times and forces me to walk away for several days. I have watched as this game continues to become more and more toxic to its player base by removing obstacles that used to make it challenging to play. THE TORPEDOS THROUGH THE ISLANDS NEED TO BE FIXED!!!! This makes for utter garbage play when this game is better than this or at least it should be!!!
  16. FairWindsFollowingSeas

    Vermont Kicks A**

    Just as I predicted while playing the Minnesota last patch, having 12 457s is totally worth the slow speed & reload, in my opinion. I run the Artillery Plotting Room for slot 6, the dispersion is TASTY!!! I set a new record for myself on my 5th match, 8 destroyed ships in one match. What do you guys think about the Vermont?? Enjoying it, or not? I like it so far. The sluggishness can be an issue at times.
  17. Sooo, just came out of this battle. I believe people will notice something is missing . With that fresh example, this brings up the biggest impact the skill rework had, aka the disruption of the class ecosystem. It isn't just Deadeye; it plays its role in attracting BB players as if it will suddenly make them godlike snipers. It's that cruisers aside from a few lighthouse build exceptions got the short end of the stick and it shows while the other surface classes profited quite a bit. Why bother playing a CA/CL? To be target practice, or to stick to a specific playstyle that's just farming damage without any other impact? What's the point to punish myself in a cruiser when I can mimick a CL in a Kleber with 16.3km range, that goes 55 kts and has no citadel? Damage isn't everything, and in the case of cruisers their consumables can have real, meaningful impact on a battle without even firing a shot. Without them around there are no real hard counters to things like vision control of the DDs, nor DPM that can melt a fragile class. And when there are loads of BBs and almost no cruisers around DD populations surge. At that point the greatest enemy of a DD becomes an enemy DD, something which relies heavily on personal skill, something which the average DD player is lacking. Meanwhile aside from that original announcement there is still no info on the specifics of skill tweaks. But hey, at least I got my pound of flesh from the enemy BBs/DDs so everything is fine, there's absolutely no need for changes nor is the situation slowly turning toxic.
  18. I recently completed this LEGO 1:350 scale model of the October Revolution and thought I'd share: Compared to my older 1:350 Kongo: The ship is about a foot and a half long, contains about 1000 parts, and powered by LEGO Powered Up elements Won't write too much since they keep deleting these threads, but here's a video with my commentary and the ship running: Have a nice day!
  19. metus_regem

    Help picking a BB line

    Greetings, thank you for taking the time to look at this... I'm trying to figure out the right BB line for me to go down, I've got USN/KM/RN BB's upto T4/5, but I'm trying to figure out what line I really want to invest in, I don't mind starting a new tech line if that helps. Right now my favorite ship to play is the Graf Spee, I don't mind the lower speed of her and I love her hitting power (ability to punch above her weight class), so I guess what I'm asking is, is there a line that can give me a similar feel (between T1-10, not just T10) to the Graf Spee all the way up the line?
  20. So I got Georgia for coal, and now with the news of some premiums going away, is it worth getting the Massa? Like is it worth having both premiums or will Georgia suffice my need for a secondary ship? I also have a bunch of gold from free Santa crates and a coupon so I can get Massa half off, however, I also really want Warspite.
  21. SuperRodge52

    Guilio Cesare

    Will Guilio Cesare ever be back for sale?
  22. Pictures of the T8 USS North Carolina berthed at Wilmington, NC 1280 From the gangway boarding the ship 1282 Twin 40mm AA 1284 Rear 16" turret - Open to the public 1288 bow looking aft 1290 turrets 1 & 2 1291 5" turret - open to public 1293 5" turret gunners position 1295 optical range finger for 16" guns 1296-99 inside 16" guns 1300 "wishing" looking 4 decks below 1301 Pharmancy 1302 Part of fire control computer circa 1943 1301 16" shells 1308 Schematic of steam piping. If this takes a hit there's no fixing it during combat. 1309 Sign in front of 20mm AA. African-Americans volunteered to serve on 20mm and were credited with one kill Vought Vought OSU Seaplane Steam Turbine as complex as anything found on land
  23. I played a Neighbors coop today and aced 3 BB's, but only got credit for 2. Is this common? I mean, I replayed the game several times and there is no doubt in my mind that 3 went to the bottom I was given credit for the first 2 and then just as the 3rd exploded, the game ended. Could that be the reason for no credit? 20210117_154754_PGSB507-Scharnhorst_42_Neighbors.wowsreplay
  24. Like many other people who plays WOWS regularly, I received the USS Kansas free of charge before the full release of the new line of low speed American BBs. The Kansas turned out to not be the best BB at tier 8. But from my perspective, it's also not the worst. It's slow in a straight line. But it turns okay. It's vulnerable to HE hits and fire. But its citadel also happens to be well armored and fairly low in the water. (in practice, AP hits that miss the citadel tend to overpen) Its 40 second reload on the main battery takes getting used to. But the fact that you have 12 16" guns at tier 8 despite the slow reload and semi iffy accuracy seem to work out as more of a trade off in play style than an outright disadvantage in comparison to the main batteries of other T8 BBs. At the end of the day, the Kansas worked out okay for me. Its HP pool is decent. Its AA is actually semi reliable. (I was able to fight off attacks by a Hakuryu with it) When fighting against lower tier enemies, it has no problem doing its part as it's essentially a bigger and heavier dreadnought style BB. Against same tier and higher tier enemies, it isn't really more vulnerable or helpless than some other T8 BBs as its heavy broadside compensates for its poor accuracy and slow reloads while its protection scheme remains workable. I managed to earn enough XP in the Kansas to research the Minnesota just in time for the line's full release. Unfortunately, the Minnesota seems to have some very serious problems. It very much struggles in combat and might just currently be the worst tier 9 BB available in game... Here are some of my observations: On survivability 1. Unlike with the Kansas, the entire superstructure of the Minnesota seems to receive normal penetrations instead of over-penetrations when hit by AP shells of all calibers. Angling or facing the enemies bow on does not seem to mitigate this problem at all. Maybe this is due to the size and volume of it. 2. The 38mm plating on the ship is obviously meant to give it a degree of protection from smaller caliber HE shells as it prevents light cruiser caliber HE from penetrating. But it seems that when hit by enemy AP shells, the 38mm plating often arm their shells' fuses resulting in normal pens rather than over-pens. When angling against the enemies just enough to still use all 4 of your turrets, enemy AP hits on the upper cheeks of the ship's frontal hull (essentially the upper parts of the ship's 38mm torpedo bulge) seem to almost always result in normal pens. It's not unusual for enemy AP salvos to do about 10k damage each despite angling and maneuvering. 3. When sailing away from the enemies, the ship's 38mm plating and superstructure's vulnerability to normal pens seem even more pronounced as the Minnesota has a stern quarter deck a full deck lower than is the case towards the bow. In this situation the superstructure is even larger and more easily hit. 4. So even before we factor in the damage the ship can take from HE and fire, it already has a major weakness of taking high damage AP salvos if and when it's hit by the enemies around its center of mass regardless of positioning. In practice, any enemy ships of all classes with good AP performance or shoot AP regularly are serious threats to the Minnesota. The Stalingrad, Moskva, Petropavlovsk, and other Soviet cruisers, any German cruisers, any British light cruiser, any Soviet DD, any Italian cruiser with SAP shells, any German DD with their high alpha AP, and British DDs with good AP normalization can all quickly farm off HP from a Minnesota. They can usually do it way more efficiently than a Minnesota can reply. 5. Despite the prevalence of 38mm CL HE resistant plating on the ship, its superstructure is large relative to the ship and very easily hit in combat. So it remains very vulnerable to enemy HE and fires, particularly if we consider the ship's small for a tier 9 HP pool, poor for a tier 9 mobility, and the lack of a superior than standard heal consumable. 6. Ironically despite the ship's relatively small HP pool and short length, its concealment is not great. Technically it's worse than that of several other tier 9 BBs that are longer. So the low speed, short length, and smaller HP pool did not provide any perk in terms of concealment to compensate. Its concealment is outright worse than a similar configured Kansas (with concealment upgrade and camo paint) at 15.3km vs the Kansas’ 14.5km. 7. Being a dreadnought and US standard style BB, the ship is proportionally wide and stubby for a tier 9 BB. I would think that these traits would allow the ship to turn well despite the inferior straight line speed in comparison to same tier BBs that are longer. But unfortunately the ship turns sluggishly and reluctantly in a way that's possibly worst in tier. Maneuvering the Minnesota to dodge incoming enemy fire is usually ineffectual and a fruitless chore. On its effectiveness in combat As a design concept, The Minnesota seems to be very similar if not too similar to the Kansas. I think the 2 ships are similar enough to be sisters or half sister ships of the same class that just happened to have undergone a different modernization upgrade/rebuild. The Kansas is obviously a WW2 era update of the 1920 South Dakota class super dreadnought, which's essentially an enlarged Colorado class style design with 50% more main guns and a minor speed buff to 23 knots. Ironically the Minnesota could just as well also be a WW2 era update of the 1920 South Dakota class super dreadnought. Currently the Minnesota is visually similar (albeit at a larger size) to the late war rebuilt USS California as seen in game. I think for the sake of the game it makes sense to differentiate the 2 ships, more specifically it makes sense to make the Minnesota good enough to be workable for its tier. 8. For some reason the Minnesota’s main battery has a 40s reload like the Kansas’. I think the slow reload on the Kansas can be explained as “it just happens to be an early design for a 16” gun armed ship using triple turrets, so there’s a speed penalty for its once novel and advanced configuration, or rather in the context of the game to compensate for the heavy weight of its broadside for its tier”. (like how the New Mexico’s 4x3 14” main battery has a slower reload than the Fuso’s 6x2 14” main battery) But considering the Minnesota’s placement at tier 9, wouldn’t it make sense for the Minnesota to have a quicker main battery reload speed than that of the Kansas? I think a reload speed buff to 33s to 35s is reasonable. Currently the only advantage the Minnesota has over the Kansas in terms of DPM comes in the form of its AP shells having an extra 1000 HP points to their alpha. In practice, its impact is minimal. 9. I think both the Kansas and Minnesota’s main batteries are relatively unreliable when it comes to accuracy. The good range they have seem to only come in handy when shooting HE against slow or stationary and angled enemy BBs. Against maneuvering cruisers and DDs, neither the Kansas nor the Minnesota are reliable unless the enemies are close. In absolute terms, the Minnesota’s main battery feels somewhat more accurate and reliable than the Kansas’. But considering the meta of its tier (in terms of typical engagement range and enemies it faces regularly), the Minnesota fares significantly worse than the Kansas. Sure 12 16” guns are always nice to have at tier 9. But in practice the Minnesota seem to struggle with consistent damage dealing at range. I think the FDG is the only other BB of its tier that has issues in this regard.Also if we look at the other tier 9 BBs with 12 guns, the Alsace and Pommern, those ships are significantly superior to the Minnesota in every other way (in terms of speed, secondary armament, special consumables, and survivability) aside from their smaller caliber. 10. The slow top speed of 23 knots is a far greater handicap for a ship at tier 9 than at tier 8. It’s technically unprecedented, as before this new line of US BBs, the Musashi and Soyuz were considered slow for tier 9 BBs: in comparison the faster BBs like the Georgia, Iowa, and Alsace are all more competitive and user friendly. The Kansas is mobile enough when fighting against similar “slow” BBs found at tier 6 and 7 (Like the QE, New Mexico, Colorado, and other dreadnoughts), and when up tiered, as a tier 8 it at least has far less pressure to contribute and carry than a Minnesota at tier 9. Worse comes to worst a Kansas can play defensively and passively and be okay, while a Minnesota needs to push, chase, relocate, and disengage on a far more regular basis. Unfortunately the Minnesota struggles to move around fast enough to accomplish anything. On one hand it can be outright left behind by faster ships engaged in a running gun battle. On the other hand, should a Minnesota ever commit to a flank but it falls or is abandoned, it’ll inevitably not be able to escape from the falling flank. It’s seemingly too slow to even perform a fighting retreat properly. Often it’ll just be swarmed and shot up quickly through the back side of the superstructure from the rear end… I think if the Kansas retained its original speed like the standard battleships IRL, maybe it make sense to give the Minnesota a propulsion upgrade as a part of its fictional upgrade scheme and allow it to reach 25 knots. Something like this was done to the Kongo class in IRL and happened to the German Bayern class in game. (IRL and before their fictional modernization they were slower than the Queen Elizabeth class). It’s not too much to ask. I think this is enough analysis for now. Please feel free to discuss about how you feel the Minnesota and what should be done about it. The video below shows game I played in the Kansas with just a 6 point captain at the helm. The Kansas just somehow felt easier and more forgiving to play despite having to face off multiple tier 10s, including a Kremlin in a brawl and repeated attacks by a Hakuryu. Nowadays I almost prefer to play the Kansas in place of the Minnesota if I can…
  25. Longtime player, somewhat new forum poster. Forgive me for being bad at formatting. This is essentially going to be a giant essay. I'll try to space it out to be easier on the eyes. The Izumo. No matter what people think of her, she is well known. Especially by those who've played her. Izumo is notorious as the insurmountable last hurdle to getting the Yamato. But for a lot of people the grind is anything but smooth. I want to explore this more and figure out why exactly the attitude towards this ship is the way it is. In my experience when I first grinded her, Izumo was indeed a pain. But way back then I was a terrible player in general. I was bad at everything and Izumo was punishing my mistakes even more than usual. But let's for a moment assume that most people who personally grinded Izumo were actually competent at that stage of their play history, unlike me. Still, why does the ship get so much hate? Is it all hearsay and bad reputation or is she really a bad ship, and if people are doing bad in her, why is that and how can they fix this? So Let's get down to business(to defeat the Huns) And to take a look at Izumo's glaring weaknesses. Her stock form is atrocious, ugliness aside(I actually like the C hull's look a lot), you are going to have a rough time with Izumo's initial stats. Let's go down the line. HP: 76,500. Starting off you have more HP than Iowa and Friedrich, But they beat you once out of stock. Good news is you beat Lion.... Speed: 27.1 Kts. You start off around the same as the other T IX BB's but you stay the slowest out of stock. Rudder Shift: 26 seconds. Every BB at this tier starts out equally as bad, but Izumo is still the worst. Out of stock is a bit more playable but the competition still leaves much to be desired. Especially since other BB's can afford rudder shift upgrades where Izumo is forced to use damage control for reasons that will be addressed. Concealment: 19.26 Km Absolutely atrocious. The worst stock value in the game. Now here is possibly her biggest weakness of all. She is covered in 32 mm plating from bow to stern and has a wide open deck. This means that any cruiser or RN BB will see you as food and boy will they feast. Not only from fires but from HE pen as well. Your only chance of protection is if shells hit your turrets. Which isn't desirable, as they are all in one spot and if they are knocked out you lose a lot of firepower. The above alone is enough to easily make people hate their experience and disown the Izumo for good. Not to mention in updates past she had absolutely unusable guns as well. Now Lets focus on what the Izumo does well. Which is surprisingly a lot of things. First Izumo has very good guns. These things hit hard, and are reasonably accurate. Izumo's guns tend to hit for high damage very consistently from steep angles sometimes. But it's her turret traverse that is her sweet spot. Compared to Yamato, and some of the other battleships in her tier Izumo has very fast turning turrets. Stock, they turn 180* in 40 seconds flat. With Expert Marksman, this goes down even further to 34.6. With Main Battery mod 2 even further to 30.6. Additionally you can run MBM 2 and 3 simultaneously to enjoy a 27 second reload and 34.6 traverse. In short these are very responsive guns that unlike their more responsive German competition, are very accurate. Even sans the aiming systems upgrade. This is a far cry from Yamato's turret ergonomics, which in my opinion are Yamato's biggest weakness. Personally I think these responsive turrets make up for the awkward no. 3 Derp turret, or at least make them in line with other 3 turret battleships that can enjoy firing directly to the rear. Now her outer Armor scheme is very bad but her internal armor scheme is pretty good. A near submerged citadel with a nice beefy belt covering it. Additionally, similar to Amagi, Izumo also has a nice thick rear armor belt. This may not see much use, but it is interesting nontheless. Now taking all this into account, let's try to assess whether or not the Izumo is really a bad ship or not. Her atrocious concealment can be brought down to a playable amount somewhere around 14 Km. (forgive me as I don't have a fully specced captain for her at the moment.) This mitigates one of her worst weaknesses to a good enough level that lets a skilled player position themselves into a good place to stay alive and be effective. In fact some unicum Youtubers recommend using hard cover in Izumo as much as possible. Damage control 1 and 2 is absolutely required to make this ship be playable, and if you have the spare points, Basics of Survivability and India Yankee flags will bring fires down to a very manageable level. This doesn't fully solve the weakness against HE, but in a big ship like this. These modifiers will help a lot. You could go a step further and take Fire Prevention, but unless you have an uber captain I would take Concealment Expert over this, given the choice. So between fire extinguishing modifiers and good positioning, a lot of Izumo's worst weaknesses can be patched up. In my opinion the strengths above will shine through the best this way. Which makes her an absolutely acceptable Tier IX Battleship. Now by no means is she the best battleship or even Tier IX battleship, but I see no reason why Izumo isn't a perfectly acceptable grind to Yamato. Besides, in the current meta battleships carry a lot of weight. Izumo has a bit of a higher skill floor to do acceptable in her, but played right can do her job. Speaking of her playstyle, I find Izumo to have an interesting one. Basically you need to hang in the back or behind hard cover preferably and take potshots at people. Once the battle reaches a certain point you can throw your weight around and help mop up and carry the team to a victory. Other ships like Kurfurst are better at this, but Izumo does just fine with it. And that's it really. My final thoughts on Izumo, that she's fine exactly where she is right now. She doesn't need buffed or nerfed or replaced. She is tough to play, but that doesn't mean she is bad. I think she does her job fine as the final gatekeeper to Yamato. The Wiki here also brings up an interesting thing. She essentially can outdo Friedrich at range, and beat Iowa in a brawl. So I think she has a good place in the meta. Here are some captains builds at different stages that I think will help this ship a lot. Especially for anyone new to the ship or struggling with it. This is what I would recommend a new player try to use first on their Izumo also taking into account future Yamato play. It's nothing special really. Most Battleships need these core skills. I assume by tier IX a player would have at least 10 points. To a player who has a spare captain with a decent amount of points wanting to use Izumo, I would use this. The Basics of Survivability and High Alert will be very useful for keeping this ship alive especially with damage control and India Yankee. If you, like me, have a soft spot for underdog ships performing their best, then these 19 point builds will push Izumo to it's maximum usability. The first one uses Jack of all trades to push that repair cooldown even further as well as your heal too which can be beneficial. And uses Adrenaline rush to capitalize on Izumo's low reload (assuming you went with MBM 3) and the idea that shes going to take damage in every match, so might as well benefit from it. DISCLAIMER for those who want to say "your stats are garbage therefore your words have no weight." Fair enough My stats are bad. Most of them accumulated during my awkward player phase where I did not care one bit about improving myself. This isn't true now, but my stats are still bad. However they are increasing, which means I am improving. It just takes time. Have a nice day, and thanks for reading.
×