Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'colorado'.



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
    • Patch notes
    • Contests And In-Game Competitions
    • Support
    • The Pigeon's Nest
    • Player Gatherings and Events
    • Surveys
  • General Gameplay Discussion
    • General Discussion
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Off-Topic
    • Player Modifications
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Contest Entries
  • Contest Entries
  • New Captains
  • Guías y Estrategias
  • Árboles Tecnológicos
  • Fan Art and Community Creations
  • Community Created Events and Contests

Calendars

  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Found 59 results

  1. Sea Group leaked some changes for the upcomming patch. Colorado Hitpoint on B Hull increased from 50100 to 59300, and no change to her Repair Party. Her main gun accuracy is adjusted to 1.9σ from 1.8σ (Hull A) and 2.0σ(Hull B), respectively. Since I got already 2 warnings for linking sea-group stuff just google for that org
  2. One of the latest post on SEA group on yesterday showed some balance change. You could go read there. https://sea-group.org/?p=3703&lang=en and one change come into my eyes Colorado - Hitpoint on B Hull increased from 50100 to 59300, and no change to her Repair Party. - Her main gun accuracy is adjusted to 1.9σ from 1.8σ (Hull A) and 2.0σ(Hull B), respectively. Let just say she got HP buffed but she trade with some accuracy when she fully upgraded. let's discus if this is what she really needed or not?
  3. Got them Lolorado blues...

    Not a main with it by any means, but I like to take out Colorado every once in a while because I generally do pretty well in it, and because, as I like to repeat; 'I started playing Colorado with a zero-point captain on a dare,' and again, have always done well in it. Not awesomely, perhaps, but well enough for me personally. This weekend seemed to be the exception to that rule. I believe 4 of the games were wins, but they were quite the sad wins. Curb stomps where the destroyers and cruisers wound up murdering everything before I could even get close; less than 3k damage in three of the games... in a tier 7 battleship... ...less than 3k... la, la, la... The fourth win was mutch better, and more normal; over 100k damage. The loss... In the loss I did zero damage, and wound up with a 'no contribution to battle.' Went to help someone, the Reds decided 'Tag! You're it!' and I got focused to death. Thanks to a Micky K that couldn't motivate themselves to shoot out of the smoke they were in at the SPOTTED destroyer that was spotting me, I had a really short game. Driver wandered off into the corner of the map, and I have no idea if they ever shot at anything or not; I was too hacked off, and just went back to port as soon as the curb stomp of us was complete. Considering it took me EIGHTEEN BLOODY GAMES, (15 battleship games and three Hosho games,) to get the three wins I needed to start the Guadalcanal missions, I can only conclude that last weedend just wasn't my weekend...
  4. So I was looking at the wikia for advise on how to best upgrade the T7 USN Colorado and it mentioned a "Hull C", however that Hull does not show in my game for my Colorado. I do see forum posts about it as late as August 2016 (could be ones after that but i can't find any atm), so was it removed from the game at some point after that and before now? Or is this some sort of glitch in the game? Any info on this would be helpful!
  5. ^&$#@# the Colorado

    I've been playing for a bit now, and while i know i'm not the best BB captain I can't understand how utterly unprepared i was for the level of suck i've experienced in the Colorado. It's armor is mediocre at best. it's reallllllllly hard to get Citadels, and it is absolutely no fun to drive. I expect the small minded to look up my stats and verbalize how bad a captain i am in their opinion. If that's your goal please refrain from posting. I just want to know if it's even worth it to continue to the next tier. I don't want to waste my time.
  6. ARMOR MODEL ERRORS THREAD, THE THIRD This is simply another compilation of armor model errors that I have been collecting for the past few months on a handful of ships in the game. I have checked each and every one of these errors as thoroughly as possible with the information at hand, and matched them with both official blueprint material and secondary sources such as Friedmans incredible series of books. I list these in hopes that they garner enough attention so as to be noticed by Wargaming and corrected. Some of these are long standing errors that numerous other forum users have listed, this simply acts as a way to combine them all together. I only list those that I believe have a noticeable effect on gameplay. Yes I know Atlanta's belt armor is 6 mm too thin, but the effect it has on gameplay is nonexistent (however that also means that there's no reason for WG not to just correct it). Be ready for a long infodump, read at your own risk. Anyway, on to the armor model issues. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ First up is the armor of the secondary battery turrets mounted on the following ships: -North Carolina -Alabama -Iowa (and by extension, Missouri) All of this ships, save for Monty and NC have a uniform battery of ten 127/38 Mk. 28 Mod.2/3 twin gun turrets (NC uses the Mod.0 which is 2" STS or 50 mm in real life). This turret is a special mount designed specifically for Battleship use, with increased protection levels compared to those mounted on Cruisers and Destroyers. The key feature of these turrets is the armor thickness of the mounts. Instead of the uniform 1" (25mm) STS on smaller ships, these are built with 2.5" STS (or about 64 millimeters) which more than doubles their protection levels over lighter mountings. Ingame, all Cruiser, Carrier and Battleship mounts use the same model with identical 1" STS armor, probably for ease of use when making new ships. The effect this has on gameplay is somewhat minor, but often visible. This means that 8" armed cruisers, or all guns in excess of 120 mm and equipped with IFHE, can penetrate and destroy these mounts when firing high explosive. Seeing as how battleships usually spend a lot of their time being spammed at with HE, this often leads to most of these turrets being destroyed, which severely impacts AA DPS and secondary firepower. ( I especially notice the loss of firepower with secondary spec builds, as I use these on my North Carolina, Alabama, Iowa and Missouri. It is common to end the game with only 1-2 turrets left functional from HE spam). Normally this probably wouldn't matter that much, but quite literally every other secondary battery mount in the game has protection at least in the ball-park of correct. It also severely hurts both AA and secondary specialized builds on high tier American battleships, when a single Atago HE salvo can wipe out a quarter of their firepower. I understand if this was done in order to standardize the models ingame, but its simply incorrect. Ironically enough, Montana's 5"/54 turrets have the correct thickness, being 2.5" STS all around the mount. To me this means that the incorrect thickness on the other battleships is not intended to nerf them, but rather a sign of laziness. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Second in line is the casemate battery of Mutsu and Nagato: This is a rather simple error. The lower casemate guns should have 6" (152 mm) gun shields (note: not the entire casemate, simply the gun shields themeselves), and the upper mounts 1" (25 mm). Ingame, both levels are simply 1", most likely because WG didn't want to have two different armor groups for them. A small gameplay difference, as it effects the survival of about half of Nagato and Mutsu's 14 cm/50 Third Year Type guns. Simply another product of laziness. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Third at bat is Colorado's forward torpedo rooms and the belt armor covering them: After checking multiple sources for accuracy, it seems to be the case that Colorado is missing a rather large section of its forward citadel area. This space in question encompasses the submerged torpedo rooms, torpedo magazines, and other small compartments contained within it. It occupies the length between frames 9 through 24 (frame 24 being the current location of the frontal citadel bulkhead on the ingame model), and the height between the double-bottom and the third deck. The reason for this position seems to have been solely to remove the submerged torpedo rooms from the magazine space, "the torpedo room, being a recognized weak place in the structure..." (quoted from Norman Friedmans "U.S. Battleships", page 134). Friedman goes on to say that there is a 127 mm (5") deck covering this area from above, and that it is capped by a 343 mm (13 1/2") bulkhead that tapers down to 8" at its bottom. Below is a rough approximation of its location and thickness. The "step" down of the armored deck and belt are visible here, denoted by the concentration of ordinance and bomb storage immediately below the third deck. When the torpedo tubes were removed in the 1930's, these areas were used for small arms munition stowage, as well as aerial bombs for the spotting aircraft. This bulkhead is clearly visible in the post Pearl Harbor damage report of the USS California. The California is a Tennessee class, which shares an identical armor layout to the Colorado class. The final nail in the coffin for this one is the schematics of the cancelled 1920 South Dakota class. This class essentially replicated the Colorado and Tennessee scheme, albeit up-scaled slightly. Ingame this forward area on Colorado is simply represented by a single bulkhead that starts at the base of the "A" barbette, much like that on Arizona and New Mexico. The gameplay effect of this is simple, the forward end of Colorado should be much more resilient to low caliber AP/HE spam, and the citadel size should be increased to encompass this area. The reason for it being modeled incorrectly ingame is most likely simply due to a drought in information about this particular area of the Colorado class, and the assumption that all standard type battleships had an identical forward bulkhead layout. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Here's a quick one for Arizona and New Mexico: This is rather simple. The 38 mm (1.5") deck on Arizona extends all the way past the citadel bulkhead to the tip of the bow, and from the tip of the steering gear bulkhead to the tip of the stern. New Mexico mimics this layout exactly, apart from the third deck on it being 70 mm (2.75") over the citadel instead of 38 mm (1.5") like Arizona. The deck ends are visible in this recreation of a drawing from Norman Friedmans "American Battleships": The only effect this has on gameplay is that shells capable of overmatching the bow of Arizona and New Mexico will have a harder time actually impacting the forward bulkhead, instead being more likely to ricochet off of the 1.5" deck end instead.These deck ends are already present on the New York, Texas, Wyoming, Arkansas, Warspite and Hood (to my knowledge). They were probably omitted for model simplification reasons early on in the games development. With the increasing accuracy and sophistication of armor models ingame, I see no reason for these decks to not be added in. And that's it for this thread. I know there are a myriad of other glaring issues ingame, such as Montana/Iowa/Missouri's turret faces missing the STS backing, or Montanas incorrect bomb deck thickness (should be 57 millimeters, not 38). As well as others, such as Indianapolis's incorrect belt thickness, or Warspites ice cream machine being part of the citadel, but all of those have been covered extensively. I thought I would do one on these in particular since they are less well-known and may have a large impact on certain gameplay elements. Extra thanks go to MJPIA for bringing a few of these to my attention months ago, specifically the Colorado's torpedo room. Let me know if there are other points of interest/errors you want to have looked into.
  7. Suggestion for Colorado

    This may sound a bit odd, but the devs really should consider putting a speed boost consumable on Colorado similar to the ones on the French cruisers to improve her tactical mobility on the larger high tier maps. It seems a bit silly at first thought (and I keep conjuring images of rockets attached to her sides), but Colorado's biggest problem right now is speed. I know 21knots was the real speed for the US standard battleships. That wasn't too problematic in the real world because the entire fleet was built to move at those speeds (at least until WWII), but WoWS' current tiering mechanic makes that speed is absolutely punishing on the big maps seen at T8+. It is difficult to even get Colorado into the fight when she is placed on the huge high tier maps. Giving her a higher baseline speed would not be historic and a lot of people would object, (although a sizeable number of ships and upgrades in the game themselves are not historic), but giving her a couple of temporary speed boost consumables to kick her up to say 25-27knots for a minute or two similar to what the French cruisers use would be a decent compromise. Algerie for example is the slowest T7 cruisers by default, but with her speed boost she can kick her speed up to useful numbers for a minute or two and let her get into position. A similar boost would improve Colorado mobility a bit (long enough to help her get into position) without getting overwhelming and would add a bit of tactical decision making for the player about when to use it. The temporary speed boost to 25-27 knots for a minute or so at a stretch is not unbalanced because 27 knots is pretty much the slowest speed of any superdreadnought at T7 or above anyway (minus Colorado herself). IT would allow her to mimic what every other superdreadnought her tier can do by default if only for a minute at a time and at least let her get into the match. What do people think?
  8. This has been done to death so many times already, but its that time again. I'm tired of it as well, so I'll keep this short and simple. The recent buff the Colorado's range from 16.7km to 18.8 was an extremely welcome and much needed change. It means that Colorado players need no longer be forced to run the Artillery Plotting Room modification and sacrifice AA potency or perhaps a silly secondary build. I've run a decent number of games since the change was made last patch and the ship is definitely more palatable now. However, it has not alleviated the other issues present with the ship, and has if anything made them stand out even more. The short list of glaring issues is as follows. Actually there's only one item on the list: An utter lack of a tier-appropriate hit-point pool. Seriously, can we just give the damn thing 58,000-60,000 HP already? I don't see any reason why a tier 7 battleship should be saddled with this pathetic 50,100 pool, especially since tier 7 is where basically everything is now able to overmatch the hull plating and bow/stern sections. Colorado takes the already flagging protection of New Mexico, shaves off 3,100 HP, and gets thrown up a tier so it can get punched in the face harder. I can't even think of what else to type on the subject. Buffing Colorado's HP pool just seems like such a clear and common sense thing to do that I am utterly baffled as to why it never happened.
  9. Soild game

    One on the better games ive had in this ship
  10. Well patch 6.2 has finally put an end to the grind, so I thought it was time to show some appreciation for my lovely Colorado. I recently played my two best games in the ship, within just a couple days, the latter in T9 no less. Ya, people complain that she's slow, but that's really her only weakness, and maybe the short armor belt. Even when uptiered, I have never really felt her lacking in firepower, only in speed, and it's really only on some of the really awful (and awfully large) higher-tier maps (Tears of the Desert, Okinawa, etc). For the most part as long as you can hug an island near the center of the map and limit the number of enemies that can engage you, she does very well. Pretty sure she is my ship with the most Krakens and maybe achievements overall Obviously not the best Colorado player out there, but I think it's a pretty good result A commentary I made about positioning And finally, the bonus round: a hilarious PvE game where the bots are more drunk than usual and I do 130k of HE/fire damage So goodbye Colorado and thanks for all the fish
  11. How hard is this ship going to be suffering from power creep? Like its crazy how much it is getting smashed further down to be the worst T7 BB. First let me say I don't play this ship, I don't even like this ship... Haven't since Beta me and it just didn't talk. Since Beta I have played it a total of 2 times. But God I see it on the other team in battle and just instantly think "no threat". Yes I know there will be those that say oh shes not a bad ship if you know how to make her work. Well yea anyone good enough can make almost anything work. This is just starting to get a little ridiculous at this point though. I have put forward only today grant you my opinion that it should get the trops it did not get in the game from how it did at one point have them in the real world, but others have before too. Here is my reasons for it through: Colorado as many people have pointed out is supposed to be a mid-range brawler of a battleship. But with the Germans being put in with torps along with other factors finds itself many times dying for trying to do this role. Mutsu just got added and she now has 16 inch guns AND trops at a tier lower then Colorado. Gneisenau, her sister, and Tirpitz had to be special with the torps as battleships but as I just pointed out now they are not the only ones with them. With their speed advantage they also have over her makes it more difficult to get into the bawl if Colorado even tried. The point for the Germans getting it and Colorado not was always her gun size and 4th turret but with Mutsu that is no longer the case. Now let me put out there that I am making some large assumptions one of which its Mutsu which I know almost nothing about how well it performs in battle and only know its stats. Still to me it seems like Colorado needs something, a lot of the USN needs something but Colorado really does with how hard the creep has hit. And I say this as a player who does not even like playing her before any other nations got added besides the USN and IJN.
  12. Debate: What's the best T7 BB?

    Initially I scoffed at the design of the Gneisenau, sporting only 6 main battery 11' guns, but having played over the past week, I was stunned at the results. ...My kill ratio is off the charts. Then I read a little bit about the Scharnhorst, her sister ship, because I had confused the two. ...The Scharnhorst had 9 x 15' in. main batteries. ...At the moment I haven't playtested her, but I can only imagine that the results would be even better, given the superior firepower. ... The American BBs have all disappointed me, and the IJN Nagato, I think, is no upgrade over the T6 Fuso. On top of which, I don't think anyone would gainsay that the sisters are pretty ships, given their sleek lines.
  13. Colorado, or, Why do people hate this ship?

    So, before I begin, I realize that the A Hull is kinda bad. No, it's very bad. HOWEVER, for all those who despair in the USN BB line, do not sink into the slough of despondency! There is hope yet! And this hope doth manifest itself in the B and C hulls! Okay, so, I have been playing games with the Colorado B hull recently, and, although I do have the C hull researched and mounted, I haven't gotten around to playing it just yet. Here are some battle-results screens. At the start of this one, I was assisting a push on the West side (from the bottom spawn POV) of the map, and I fired some experimental shots at a Cleveland and straight-up deleted him with 32,400 damage. Anyway, near the end of the game, there was an enemy Bayern who started abusing one of my team members in-chat for ramming him. He was still alive, so I popped a quick, "I'll sink you for that," in chat, and, 1 minute and 30 seconds later, popped some 16" AP Caps into his... well, his side amor, but you get what I mean, and down he went. PROMISE FULFILLED! This was a less initially-amusing battle, as the only hits I could seem to get on anyone were overpenetrations or penetrations that did no damage. No, the fun in this match came later, when, after dodging a ton of torpedoes and surprise-sinking a Shimikaze, I nuked a Nurnberg for something like 20k of his health... right after doing pretty-much the same thing to an enemy Colorado. NOT SHOWN: Taking an ARP Hiei for ~30k health in one salvo. Anyway... why so much hate on the Colorado? Get your aim down-pat, and you'll start seriously nuking things. And the C hull is even somewhat-resistant to air attack! Now, on how to aim... pretty much so that your shells hit dead-center or just-behind the enemy's center. Most ships have a very high citadel under their rear turrets, so put your shells here and watch the damage numbers roll-in. Oh, and you don't want to fire from long range. Colorado gets bad dispersion at long range. You want to fire from mid- to close-range, where you can pretty-much guarantee that most of your shells are going to at least hit the same map square that your opponent is occupying. EDIT: Okay, so, in the past few minutes, this topic has somehow gotten 5 replies and 0 views. Are "Replies" considered as separate from "Views?" I thought that you had to "View" to be able to "Reply."
  14. I am debating getting rid of EM for BoS. Any thoughts? Other improvements I can make?
  15. Hey all, Here is my current captain: 6 points left, any suggestions?
  16. The bleeping Colorado, I am terrible with it and the grind is killing me. I want to the NC so much that I'll deal with it for another 100k XP or so, but UGH! I've read the reviews and watched the youtube 'how to's' but I just can't get a handle on how to be consistently successful with the Colorado. I mean, I get it - it's rather slow but has good armor and good guns and should be a good tanking ship, but I just can't git gud with it! I've tried being agressive, albeit selectively, not YOLOing - those days are behind me (or reserved for when I take the Biz out for a sail ). But I end up getting focused and burnt and sunk fairly quickly. I've tried hanging back and playing the sniping game, but I often end up getting left behind and/or chased down from behind by Gneisenaus and Sharnies. What can I do to make the grind to the NC less painful? Can anyone offer up some advice on how to approach battles with the Colorado? FYI - this is my second attempt at grinding the Coco - I gave up when I was an ultra-noob for the same reasons I'm struggling now, 700+ battles later! EDIT - my Colorado is fully upgraded.
  17. I can't see the current sale price because I bought it yesterday. The reason I'm curious is because it was on sale for 3,899,000. Then a moment later when I clicked on the Purchase Button it had shot up to 4,200,000.
  18. For me, US BBs have always had huge anti air threats. Now that German BBs have practically replaced the role of US BBs (In my Hiryu, i avoid Gneisanaus and Bismarcks like the plague) with excellent AAA and good brawling characteristics, I think the US BB tree needs some tender love and care. I think a step in the right direction would be to get rid of the current B hull upgrades for the New Mexico and Colorado. The New Mexico in particular because it really does not offer much. The Japanese B hull upgrades on their respective counterparts add vast amounts of AAA and the New Mexico only gets 8 5in guns and 7.62s, pathetic. What I think could be a great idea would be to move the current C hull to B hull and add in the late war designs of AAA mounts. The last ship in the Colorado class (West Virginia) was rebuilt and modernized. It received 16 in guns (8x2) 10x4 40mm bofors mounts and 41 20mm. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b5/USS_West_Virginia_1944.jpg/512px-USS_West_Virginia_1944.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Tennessee_(BB-43) Since the New Mexico C Hull already has the historical modernized upgrades, lets apply the same with using the Tennessee class as an example instead. The Tennessee class was basically an improved New Mexico class. Having the same pre war armament and even hull length and 1000 Long Tons heavier in original config. (According to Wikipedia, the differences were improved firing elevation and torpedo protection). Late war USS Tennessee had 8x2 5in guns, 10x4 40mm guns, and 41 20mm guns (same as the Colorado class) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee-class_battleship https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b5/USS_West_Virginia_1944.jpg/512px-USS_West_Virginia_1944.jpg Thoughts?
  19. Encouraçados Tier VI

    Bom dia a todos tudo bem. Cheguei no tier VI de encouraçados alemão e americano, do lado alemão estou com Bayern e do lado dos americanos com o Colorado. Ambos ainda não fiz nem 10 batalhas e ambos também não estão todo equipado (falta de prata mesmo rsrssr). Gostaria de saber a opinião de quem já teve esses dois encouraçados o que achou do desempenho deles em cada batalha. Uma observação: Tenho a leve impressão que encouraçados com 4 torres principais de 2 canos, são melhores que um encouraçado com 4 torres de 3 canos percebi grande diferença do New Mexico para o Colorado e Bayern em relação a disparo, dispersão dos projeteis e pode de impacto. O que vocês acham?
  20. Sometimes you can't run away...

    Sometimes you can't run away, even if you wanted to... Neighbors, tried to follow most of team, didn't want to push by myself when they started coming back, trying very badly to defend our cap, managed to sink an enemy somehow. How we won I have no idea, since I don't recall seeing any of our ships in the enemy cap, and they had three closing on ours. Faultline. Not being aggressive enough. Too many DDs lurking around... That's my (weak excuse) story, and I'm sticking to it. Two Brothers. Standard mode. picked Colorado because the 8-point captain currently in it was close to getting another skill point. Standard four bonus signals equipped, (300% fxp, 50% xp, 50% com xp, 333% Dragon.) Most of team pushed east, some stayed near cap to defend the gap, and approach from west. This and that happened, with me mostly trending east-north-east. Collided with an ally, collided with another ally, (I need to watch out more.) Decided a Gneisenau was getting too close for comfort, and tried to turn away; only to have the second collision mentioned above, (ironically with our Gneisenau... Dang that thing is big compared to Colorado...) Can't turn away, trapped against the map edge, to stay where I was would be just BEGGING for torps from the enemy Gnei; that only leaves turning towards the torps that would likely sink me. Secondaries already focused on the Gnei, I just made it off the map edge and started to settle on course at less than 5k, here come the torps... Yahoo! Bad launch! Finger back down on the rudder and manage to only take one torp. Secondaries pounding away, but someone else gets in the finishing blow. Farragut ahead, but he is blocked by a wreck and a retreating ARP Hiei. AP loaded, tap key for HE just in case. Fire, and bad hits, but my secondary gunners put down the sauce long enough to put down the Farra. Lock secondaries on the Hiei, tap for AP, and try to start shooting at it, but the enemy Colorado appeared, so I had to focus on him. Angled as much as I could against both the Colo and Hiei, I don't know why; maybe the Hiei wasn't moving at full speed, but my secondaries kept shooting at it for a long time, while I fired my main battery at the Colorado. Stuck between two rocks basically; I felt reasonably certain I coiuld withstand being shot at by the Hiei, but if it ever speed up it could easily outrun my Colorado and get away because turning my main battery on it would mean letting the Colorado shoot at me unanswered. Colorado finally went down, and I was able to turn my attention to the Hiei, which had finally decided moving slowly was a bad idea, and was running. Finished the Hiei, and exchanged shots with a Murmansk who was wisely employing much WASD until I finally broke his sight by going behind an island. (SAFE! Now put those fires out... Notice I've used up all my heals fighting fires and other damage, so Dreadnaught on results screen.) Game was a win. I think a lot of fighting happened in our cap, and at the gap; but I was too busy to notice. Weak damage for a Colorado I suppose, but I think the 1.8 mil potential damage is the highest I've had for any of my ships so far. I guess I can be brave when there's no choice... I just wish I could be so more consistently...
  21. tips for the colorad

    I just started on the Colorado, because I want a NC for rank And I have a rough couple of game just wondering if anyone had any quick tips for me. BTW I cant see the new ranked rewards, whats the deal with that?
  22. Colorado Update

    The good news: I've finally unlocked the C hull! The bad news: I need about 1.6 million more credits to buy it. The better (ish) news: Once I'm done with the C hull, that's the last thing I need for her. From there on out, everything's pointing towards the North Carolina and beyond. The end of this grind is slowly but surely coming into sight. Good luck, and fair seas!
  23. Get Good: How to Colorado

    In this video, just like my last one on the New Mexico I talk about the tips and tactics I use in the Colorado. For some reason, like the Pepsicola Players just dont seem to like her. Hopeful these tips will help improve you game play with her and youll at least enjoy your time before moving on up the line.
  24. I take out the Colorado - I have a love/like relationship with it. Either I potato and do 20-30K damage or I do 80K+.... Probably my best game ever after having potato games last night (but teams won) I had probably my best game ever in WoWs. 6 kills, 56 hits, 10 planes shot down (non-AA build), 6 citadels, and 5 defended and 149,369 damage, Kraken, High Caliber. 2532 base XP and 173K credits... I seem to either lose 20KL credits or get 80-130K credits. For me - it is as close to a currency printer that I have in my port slots. Only my second Kraken in over 2200 games I think. Replay http://wowreplays.com/Replay/17490
  25. How do I Colorado?

    Hey all, Not a big BB player, mainly play DDs. Love CVs, but USN CVs are utter garbage, so my lex is mothballed til something changes. ON THAT NOTE: How do I colorado? I HATE sitting back and sniping, absolutely, 100%, HATE it; sitting back and rolling dice to RNG gods every 30seconds SUCKS I LOVE brawls. There is nothing more fun to me than (when it rarely occurs) getting <9km with another BB and duking it out; but this nearly NEVER happens. I was told USN BBs were for brawling, so what is what I went for. What no one told me was that you'd have little-to-no support while closing the distance, that everyone and their mom would be aiming for you, that other allied BBs would not attempt to take any fire from you, and that the cruisers that 'support' you will usually fly full-speed ahead infront of you and get killed before they actually can do their job. Oh and DDs screening for torps? lawl. What am I supposed to do? EDIT: I forget which BB was before my colorado (new mexico?), but I do not remember being nearly as frustrated in it. Wondering if this is maybe a Colorado thing.
×