Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'izumo'.



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 32 results

  1. Izumo 360° turret # 2

    My suggestion is simple: Izumo has turret n° 2 higher mounted than the others, so why it doesn´t rotate 360° ? when switching side both turret n°1 & n°3 will make the long way if nessesary because of the n°2 turret barbet, but n°2 has nothing on it´s way, yet it makes the long way along turret n°1. So, just make it a 360° turret, that way Izumo will be less of a pain to play in the road to Yamato. ...and please... please, that superstructure! please! ...or change it for Musashi : )
  2. My main is on Asia and this post was originally posted on reddit. I was reminded by a fellow player that I should page Sub_Octavin and seeing how the devs are active on the NA server I thought I should probably post it on here. Off topic: I get much better ping on NA server (~120ms) than on Asia server (~230ms) (I live in Australia), I should have played on NA since the beginning. (The following is a copy of my post from Reddit, slightly formatted for the forums) Long post ahead, you have been warned. First, we need to understand the difference between a paper ship and a paper ship. Some ships in the game are purely fantasy ships, i.e: their design is completely fabricated by Wargaming. Such examples are the Roon, Hindenburg, the Henri IV and the Zao. Alright, maybe Zao have a bit of historical background, as the IJN had actually planned to lay down a new generation of heavy cruisers, however, no such plans for the class survived the war and the current Zao in-game closely follows that of a fan-design on a Japanese Warship Magazine. Then there are the ones that have historical designs but some parts have been altered by Wargaming. Examples in-game included the Hakuryu-she have the dimensions of the G-14 Project but have G-15 (kai-Taihou) project features, the Großer Kurfürst (the H-class designs all had 4 twin mounted turrets in a A-B X-Y layout not the triple turret it had in-game, and the upgraded Friedrich der Große with 420mm guns (H-39 class were not to have 420mm guns). Then there are designs which haven’t been altered (except for things like AA armament, torpedo belt and whatnot-these things are for balancing the ship into a specific tier) but are in various stages of design, some near finished, some not, some are purely design studies. Examples are the Izumo, the Nicolas, the Phoenix, and some French/Russian/British cruisers and destroyers. And then there are the designs that existed, finalised and are either ready to be built/laid down but cancelled for whatever reason. Examples in game are the Ibuki, Montana, Amagi, De Grasse, the Friedrich der Große with stock guns, some Russian/British cruisers/destroyers. One thing that differs finalised designs and designs in various stages of development is that, with finalised designs, you have accurate drawing of the said ship, many times you have wooden mock up models, and everything is finalised-including how the external appearance will look like when constructed. But with designs in various stages of development, the actual external appearance of the said ship are not ever finalized. There are rough indication of the positions of guns and funnels and superstructures and other stuff but they are not to be treated as if this is how they are going to look like if built. Wargaming have done a fantastic job on modelling paper ships. The Roon and the Hindenburg, though completely fictional, resembles many signature details of Admiral Hipper (the Bridge/conning tower shape, the seaplane facility aft of the funnel, the location of the fore and aft range finders, the Friedrich der Große and Großer Kurfürst have similar shapes of the Bismarck as well. The high tier french cruisers shares the look of the Dunkerque and the Richelieu, with the hexagonal bridge and the spikes (I don’t know what to call them) and the funnel that is swept backwards and in some ships integrated with the aft superstructure much like the Richelieu class. The Russian cruisers of Moskva and Donski all had their fair share of the Russian cruisers’ oddly high bridge and large superstructure profile. The Hakuryu looks just like an enlarged Taihou and the Zao’s superstructure and mast are not much of a departure from the Mogami class. The Myogi’s bridge also resembled that of the Modernised Kongo class. (Note that the in-game Kongo actually uses the real-life Hiei’s bridge. Hiei is the only Kongo class that have a completely different bridge than the other Kongo’s) The Conqueror, Lion and the Monarch all resembles the Vanguard/KGV/modernised QE class’s sturdy bridge look, the secondary placement and the seaplane facility located between the two smoke stacks. I think you all get the idea, WG is not bad at modeling fictional warship superstructures at all. They can, and they does closely examine built ship’s appearances and applied it to paper ships but with a slight modernisation effort. Such as the addition of FC radars and whatnot. And then there’s Izumo. Man, I never knew the Japanese opted for a minimalistic appearance for their battleships! WG’s excuse for the Izumo is that, as that’s how it looked like in the design drawing, that’s how they modelled it because that’s the official design. Is it really? Apart from ships, such as the Montana, Ibuki and the Amagi, they are been built when cancelled and the appearance is firmly decided in official drawings and plans. And Montana and Amagi even have mock up models built. The Izumo is far from been a finished design. It is one of the sub-designs of the J-series of the Yamato’s preliminary designs. It only went as far as a design study. There is a reason why only the J-series of the Yamato designs have 410mm guns as opposed to other designs which have 460mm guns. This is because it is a design study based around the fact that if it possible to for a battleship that can be built and maintained using existing dry docks and other facilities. The gun of course is downscaled to 410mm and the armour is downscaled as well. It is a design study, and it is not even close to finalised, that’s why the drawing should never be used as the basis of the Izumo’s appearance. This is the design the Phoenix in-game is based upon, WG, why didn’t you copy the appearance? https://i.imgur.com/Q7CSuBD.jpg Would you call this the Farragut? https://i.imgur.com/LkjDrZh.jpg If not, then why is this the in-game Izumo that we see? (Please note: I was unable to find the exact drawing for A140-J2 which Izumo is based upon, but this is the other design with all turrets forward.) https://i.imgur.com/Df63RPA.png But you get the idea, the drawing is far from a complete, finalised drawing. Check this design drawing for Moskva: https://i.imgur.com/xI497na.jpg How about this wooden mock-up of Montana at New York Navy Yard? https://i.imgur.com/qS1u1NG.png The reason these ships’ in-game model closely resembling their actual drawings is that they are basically finalised and that’s how they are going to look like had they being completed. The Izumo is not. I hope this will end the debate on the historical accuracy of Izumo’s in-game model. Now I wish to talk about how Wargaming could fix the model. Failure No.1 The placement of fire control director with the rangefinder. Let’s start with the bridge, https://i.imgur.com/dY9XTjq.jpg Note the part in red (Main fire control director) and the blue (forward rangefinder) For all modernised IJN battleships, there are three distinct placement styles of fire control director with the rangefinder. The Kongo class and the Fuso class https://imgur.com/a/E58YX Note that Fuso’s bridge is on top, the bottom one is actually the in-game Myogi. However, as I mentioned above, the in-game Myogi actually resembles the real life Kongo. While the in-game Kongo resembles the real life Hiei. The FC director is located forward of the rangefinder and they rotate individually. The Nagato Class https://i.imgur.com/0FHmdF7.jpg The FC director sits at the top while the rangefinder is located a couple of levels down. They rotate individually and the rangefinder actually rotates around a rail, (it’s hard to see the rail in my screenshot) And there is the Hiei-Yamato style:https://imgur.com/a/2thbR Top is Hiei (again, that’s the Kongo in-game, which is modelled after the real-life Hiei), and Yamato on the bottom. Note that they have FC director sits directly on top of the rangefinder and they rotate together. Coming back to the Izumo, why did you realise? https://i.imgur.com/dY9XTjq.jpg It have the Nagato style layout. Which completely makes no sense whatsoever. As you will see next. The reason why Hiei have a different superstructure than her sisters is that, she was a training ship demilitarised under the treaty. And she was the last ship to be modernised and refit into service. All the Kongo class received a second refit between 1934-1936. Except, Hiei’s modernisation began at 1937. She was used as an experiment platform to test out some of the features that would have been used later on the Yamato class. One of these are her bridge shape including her FC director and rangefinder layout. That is why they look so similar. I don’t think it would take a genius to figure out that had Izumo been built, she would have the same style as Yamato. Unfortunately not, she retained the layout of the Nagato class. Failure No.2 The bridge shape Now let’s move onto the bridge itself. As we can see from my screenshot before, the Hiei and Yamato’s bridge are very similar, not only did they lose the ‘pagoda’ look common to other battleships, it looks much more compact and the shape are swept backwards. There are other features which are similar, including the AA platform (where all the binoculars are) situated directly below the rangefinder, the different platform levels, the location of AA directors and so on. That should be what Izumo looks like. Failure No.3 and No.4 combined: the lack of superstructure and the placement of secondaries. Moving on, Izumo’s mid section. https://i.imgur.com/uryG4VU.jpg 404 superstructure not found. Ehh, what on earth? How would there be barely any built up? Even in its Hull C (did not have the credits to buy Izumo back so I borrowed a youtube thumbnail) https://i.imgur.com/1Yc2mmo.jpg There are no superstructure. There should be plenty of superstructure around the smoke stack and between the Bridge and the aft bridge. This is yamato on trails:https://i.imgur.com/iVFU2wd.jpg Yamato’s refits only came with the addition of AA guns and secondaries, there are always plenty of superstructure. Why don’t Izumo have them? All nation’s new generation battleships comes with superstructure. You don’t just waste empty places a ship, you can have places for AA ammo storage, addition of AA directors, more AA guns etc. Oh yeah, AA guns, this is where WG have shown themselves to be lazy, use the C-hull Izumo again:https://i.imgur.com/bbimvIc.jpg Ah, fluent use of Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V, truly a masterpiece indeed. Looking back at every nations’ new generation battleships: (Yamato, Missouri, Tirpitz, KGV) https://imgur.com/a/h286D Note how the secondaries AA guns are all S P A C E D A P A R T (and on different levels) There are very good reasons why every nation have this layout, not only does it make all guns spread apart and firing blasts won’t affect other guns and their crews, this also gives every gun much more firing angles and they can cover multiple enemy plane approaches from different heights and different angles. And even if a bomb hit as not all of them are crammed together the damage will be smaller. You can see, not only should Izumo have much more superstructure, she would certainly have AA guns on different levels as opposed to the in-game C hull where they line up closely with each other. On top of that, check the A hull-https://i.imgur.com/uryG4VU.jpg And C-hull again-https://i.imgur.com/bbimvIc.jpg No addition of AA directors at all….whew lads...what can I say… Failure No.5 Lack of local rangefinders on main turrets Even though they are all located forward, there must be local range finders for turrets. See this IJN Tone picture for example: http://i.imgur.com/7hcEJbg.jpg In-game? Not present.https://i.imgur.com/bbimvIc.jpg Of course, not all turrets should have it. Turret A situated at the forward and in heavy seas the local rangefinder is nigh impossible to use. Turret C may have transverse problem if it have them. But how about turret B? High enough, and nothing to block it, it only makes sense for there to be local rangefinders, starting from A-hull. Overall, my take on the Izumo’s model: (NOTE: I rushed these with MS paint, I may redrawn these, for now they are for rough illustrative purpose only) Overall appearance regardless of which hull: Picture 1: It should have Yamato/Hiei style bridge, local rangefinder to be installed on B turret. Picture 2: More superstructure surrounding the smokestack where I coloured in red, and the funnel should be extended to avoid interference with operation on these levels. Next, AA placements according to which hull the player is using, I tried to resemble Yamato’s historical AA refits. But without any change in actual in-game characteristics. Hull A: Izumo as she was completed, red is 15.5cm, green is 12.7cm and blue is 25mm triple AA. Note that 12.7cm is built on the superstructure, much like how Yamato is when it was completed, they are NOT on deck level. Hull B: Again, red is 15.5cm, green is 12.7cm and blue is 25mm triple AA. The in game hull B have single mounted 25mm AA, i replaced them all with triple mount 25mm. Number of barrels stays the same as in-game (AA DPS stay the same). The placements of the 25mm are very similar to the Yamato before Letye Gulf. Also more Type 95 AA directors need to be installed along with the AA. Hull C: Again, red is 15.5cm, green is 12.7cm and blue is 25mm triple AA. The number of 12.7cm increased and so two 15.5cm are removed to save weight. I replaced all the single 25mm with triple mounts but kept the barrel count the same again so DPS is same as in-game. Placements of 25mm kind of resembles that of Yamato before final mission. Stern has two 25mm AA. added 4 more near the seaplane facility. Where the 15.5cm are were plated over add two 25mm on top. three 25mm AA added on the edges on both side. B turret gets two 25mm on top. Again, more Type 95 AA directors need to be installed along with the AA. Feedbacks are more than welcome, if you have any suggestions that I may have overlooked, please feel free to tell me in the comments.
  3. If the Izumo was never added, what would replace it?? Any battleship that might fit in tier 9?
  4. Set speed to full, go RAM something. Quick Summary: [edited]pile of crap. This ship is bad enough that it alone can balance out nerfs to DDs and cruisers by merely existing in the game. Closest in-Game Contemporary Emerald, Karlsruhe, T-22, Mahan, Ranger Degree of Similarity: Clone / Sister-Ship / Related Class / Similar Role / Unique The Izumo is the turd ship of T9. Very similar in role to many other neglected ships across various tiers. Turd ships share many traits with each other, despite being entirely different ship types and classes. The one thing they all have in common, is that they only have one redeeming quality, if at all, and are completely outclassed in specs by their same tier peers. Izumo joins the ranks of godawful steaming pile of poop by doing just that. PROs More range than a brawling ship, FDG Fast Turret traverse CONs Slowest T9 ship in the game at 28 knots. In T8+ the only ship slower than Izumo is Yamato Worst concealment in the game, bar none Awful turret armor that causes turrets to die very readily Awful agility, made worse by Rudder speed improvement being locked away in C-hull Lowest HP pool of T9 BBs Poor secondary DPM, made worse by terrible secondary firing arcs Secondaries die very easily Cannot fire directly to the rear Worst AA of T9 BBs, completely unreliable Worst armor of T9 BBs, completely useless against HE Very poor rear armor with many pockets that trap AP shells Extremely long XP grind Awful Torpedo protection. Only 3% better than FDG or Iowa The things Izumo does great are far and few in-between and the things Izumo does great are completely thwarted by all of its weaknesses. To top it off, it also looks like a stack of turds served on a platter. Tower on a Platter, except, not as tasty. Options Realistically speaking, since Izumo does everything so terribly wrong, your best bet is to put on Hotel Yankee (+50% ramming damage inflicted, -20% ramming damage sustained) and go find the nearst ship(s) to ram. Consumables: Damage Control Party Repair Party Spotting Aircraft -or- Catapult Fighter Module Upgrades: Forget these, they are not necessary in the least bit. Camouflage: Forget these as well. The ones that boost XP cost money and the standard ones only raise your running costs. Firepower Main Guns: Nine 410mm/50 10th Year Type in an A-B-Crap configuration. Secondary Guns: Three 155mm/60 3rd Year Type firing to the rear and Twenty-Four 127mm/40 Type89 A1 mod.2 two rows on the sides. Where to begin. The guns are an improvement over Amagi's guns. They fire the exact same shells at the same rate of fire, but the guns fire them at faster velocities, thanks to the longer barrels used. The turrets are also placed closer to each other, which causes the shells to have tighter shot groupings than Amagi. Not only that, but the turrets also turn faster and are able to shoot further. These all sound good on paper, but that's where the dream ends. The problem starts where you have one less gun than Amagi, and then realize that, most of the time, you cannot even get all of your guns on target, thanks to poor firing arcs. Unlike Amagi, which can use its speed and agility to wiggle its rear facing turrets into play, Izumo simply does not have the luxury of doing such a task. Izumo's contemporaries, FDG, Iowa and Missouri also share this wiggling problem, to an extent, but they have other stats to help make up for this problem. FDG and Amagi have faster responding rudders to help with wiggling rear turrets into play. While Iowa and Missouri have excellent concealment to hide their weaker sides from gun fire. Izumo? Izumo has none of that, as it shares the same slow rudder as Iowa and Missouri, but also has even worse concealment than Amagi or FDG. There is no hiding in Izumo, so nearly all shots you take with Izumo are while spotted. Shells from spotted ships are very easy to avoid. Okay, so how about playing like most ships should? Kiting is very strong in WoWs. Oh, I'm sorry, Izumo only has 28 knots, so the only other ship you could out run in T8+, is a Yamato. Now, were it not for Yamato having better concealment than Izumo and also an incredible 26.63km firing range, then this may be feasible on a 40km² map. Against equal tier Iowa and Missouri, Izumo stands no chance, as Iowa is 5 knots faster and completely outranges Izumo. Against FDG, Izumo may pack more range, but FDG is 2 knots faster. Practically every other ship in the T7+ bracket, short of Colorado and Nagato, is capable of chasing down Izumo. In fact, Izumo's design does not owe well to kiting anyways. Having a very weak stern armor that traps AP shells is bad. Having a rear facing turret that cannot fire directly rear is even worse. Now anything that is chasing you can sail straight at you, with, usually, its two forward facing turrets, while you must either sail at an angle to return fire or forego giving return fire at all, in exchange for straight line speed. Remember that part where I said Izumo is the 2nd slowest ship in T8+? You cannot disengage at will, that is up to the ship(s) firing at you and how well you can nail them with your guns. These guns, by the way, also have poor firing arcs to the rear, so you, in fact, show your full broadside getting more than one turret into action. One turret is usually not enough to dissuade pursuers, while three turrets will only get you sunk faster. Hmm, a conundrum... Okay, what about the other way, bow camping? Oh, don't you worry, Izumo does that horribly as well. If you scroll back up, you will take note that Izumo has the worst armor and AA of T9 battleships. If you bow camp in a CV-less match, you will die from a flurry of HE from all the higher tier cruisers that can penetrate your measly 32mm of armor. If you bow camp in a CV match, rest assured, you will die to bombers, as your AA is garbage tier and will barely shoot down anything at all. But wait! There's more! Not only does your AA suck to start with, they also happen to die very easily with the HE spam you are going to encounter, making your AA nearly worthless. Surely bow camping must work against AP, right? Well, that is a yes and no. Yes, against cruiser AP shells, bow camping is more than sufficient. No, against battleship sized shells, you are asking to get your turrets deleted. How so, you may ask. The answer in that lies in armor thickness of your turret faces and barbettes. Here, Iowa features up to 432 - 439mm of armor protecting the turrets. FDG features 365 - 400mm. Izumo features 356 - 508mm. Oh, but 508mm! Surely that must protect the turrets! Yes, I'm sure it does, were it not for the 356mm of barbette armor. This, very same, 356mm barbette armor on Izumo, as if it were not the thinnest between the three already, also happens to sit VERY high above the ship. Taller objects are much easier to hit, as anyone who has shot at Mahan can attest to. Secondaries... right, I almost forgot about those. Well, they are completely unimpressive, as you have to be completely broadside to get any use out of them. They do have better DPM than Iowa's secondaries, due to the Triple 155mm and extra Twin 127mm, but they are completely unreliable to use when compared to the likes of FDG, or even Gneisenau. I would infer to them as deck ornaments. They are about as useful as the benches found on French cruisers. This all adds up to a ship that... cannot dance 9 guns into action at range, cannot hide, cannot dictate engagements, cannot kite, cannot bow camp, cannot fend itself from bombers and cannot even rely on its own armament to not die. Durability Hit Points: 78,900 Citadel protection: 356mm belt, 76 - 127mm sloped, 48mm deck, 203 - 410mm Athwartship Extremities armor: 32mm everywhere, except the belt and super structure Torpedo Damage Reduction: 27% FDG also suffers from getting turrets temporarily disabled, particularly turret #2 and #3, but not at the same frequency as Izumo completely loses turret #2 In a word, "Gomikuzu", which in English, translates to "Rubbish". The Good - Thickest belt armor in tier, and third thickest in the game. Only Yamato and GK have thicker belts. The belt armor is thick Athwartship armor is very thick Minimal superstructure Cruiser AP less likely to penetrate The Bad - The armor scheme looks good on paper, but is completely unreliable in practice 32mm of armor everywhere else means <180mm IFHE, and >203mm HE will penetrate all over the ship Belt armor is not thick enough to protect against T9/10 battleship guns anyways Torpedo protection is a big step down from Amagi's 42% and is only 3% better than Iowa and FDG Lowest HP of all the T9 battleships Some T5/6/7 battleships have better armor schemes than Izumo does The big fat punching bag of T9. However, unlike most other punching bags, it's shoddy construction causes it to explode when you least expect it. I wasn't even punching it that hard. Concealment & Camouflage Base Surface Detection Range: 19.26km Air Detection Range: 15.66km Minimum Surface Detection Range: 14.46km Main Battery Firing Range: 21.68km Surface Detection Rank within Tier: Dead last Surface Detection Rank within Matchmaking: Dead last Hide, you cannot. Izumo has such awful concealment, that an Iowa could still out-spot Izumo without even having the Concealment Expert skill (14.14km). In fact, Izumo's concealment is so bad, that, on some maps, Izumo can be spotted before the guns even finish loading. Perhaps being so unstealthy makes sense, when the guns pack a devastating punch. However this theory can be instantly thrown out the window, as all the T10 battleships are far stealthier than Izumo and have even more firepower than Izumo does. Or, perhaps, being so unstealthy makes sense, when your ship can zoom around the map at 50 knots. Oh wait, that's also not true at all. I was thinking Soviet DDs, not this slug of a ship, Izumo. Quite frankly, I don't understand why the concealment is so bad. Not everything in life can be explained. Anti-Aircraft Defense AA Battery Calibers: 127mm / 25mm / 25mm AA Umbrella Ranges: 5.0km / 3.1km / 3.1km AA DPS per Aura: 121 / 171 / 43 The AA on Izumo is dead last amongst T9 battleships. To hammer home the point, the AA mounts on Izumo die a quick death. Even more so than Iowa's AA mounts, which are also notorious for dying quick deaths. What is probably the saddest thing of all, is how much deck space is completely wasted on Izumo. FDG and Iowa are absolutely packed with AA mounts and secondaries, which makes them look like porcupines. Izumo, on the other hand... Well, put politely, it is pristine looking. Sure wasn't a sell out tonight. Optimal Builds So how do you go about building ships that are awful? It is very simple, simpler than you might think. Mount Hotel Yankee. This will increase your Ramming damage inflicted by 50% and also cause you to sustain 20% less Ramming damage. Mount Equal Speed Charlie London. Extra XP is always nice Mount any other economic or XP flags You are done I call this the "Full RAMMING Build". To some, this might seem ridiculous, but it really is not. Other people may recommend doing full main batter builds, full AA builds, full concealment builds or full secondary builds, but they are all wrong. Since Izumo does none of that stuff good, there is no point in trying to maximize any of it. You should, instead, go for my "Full RAMMING Build", which is guaranteed to do one thing excellently. Ramming. I do not recommend buying the engine upgrade, as you only gain a mere 0.8 knots, which is not nearly enough to justify the cost of the module. I also do not recommend upgrading the hulls at all. Even though the faster rudder is only locked away behind C-hull, this only decreases rudder speed from 26s, down to 19.7s. Not enough to justify the costs. Likewise, there is no point in buying either B-hull or C-hull for AA improvements, because the AA oriented C-hull has absolute trash levels of AA anyways. There's literally no point to upgrading anything on Izumo, not even the modification upgrades are worth it, as the prime purpose of your ship is to ram red ships. No ifs ands or buts. Arguments may be made out to the hand. The way to play, is to get a red battleship's attention, by pointing your guns at them. Hopefully, they decide they want to bow camp against you. This is when you strike. You hastily charge into the enemy and ram them, as 28 knots forwards will still beat out 14 knots backwards. Torps be damned. Epic gif recreation of Izumo attempting a ram against a stationary battleship Overall Impressions Skill Floor: Simple / Casual / Challenging / Difficult Awful ships are not easy to play and Izumo is no exception. One wrong move and it's back to port. One correct move and it's back to port. In fact, I think you need to put in 1000% effort (that's not a typo) and execute everything perfectly, as well as get perfect RNG dice rolls to even begin to do well in Izumo. Skill Ceiling: Low / Moderate / High / Extreme As awful as the ship is, it still has nine 410mm guns, which can put out the same levels of damage as the other T9 battleships. However, unlike the other three, there are severe handicaps imposed on Izumo, which causes it to have very poor match influence and outcome. "Everything you can do, I can do better" is what the other three are singing, while Izumo sits there, pondering the meaning of life. Bench warming. Someone has to do it. MrDeaf's Summary: Miserable ship that does nothing good, made worse by being in T9, with T9 XP grind wall. The guns are okay, but don't be fooled into thinking these are good guns. You get the same amount of guns as Iowa, which is one less than Amagi and you also traded off your glorious speed for kiting. By far and away, one of the most frustrating ships to play. It's quite rare to encounter ships with absolutely no redeeming qualities, whatsoever, in WoWs, but Izumo manages to achieve this. Emerald, Karlsruhe and T-22 are absolutely awful ships, but at the very least, they don't have a long grind. Mahan, as bad as that ship is, has Twelve torpedoes that can be stealth fired. Izumo is not only awful as a ship, but it is in Tier 9, the biggest grind wall of them all. I have played many matches in a wide variety of T9 ships, most of which I would consider to be trash as well. I did not like Tashkent, Kagero, Ibuki, Roon, Baltimore, Donskoi or Iowa, but they, at the very least, did one thing excellently. The T9 ships I have kept around (Fletcher, Yugumo, Udaloi) are flexible and do more than one thing excellently. Izumo, on the other hand... just wow. It does nothing good at all and the one thing it does somewhat okay in, can be accomplished better by the other three. Would I Recommend? No. Why pick the worst of the four, soon to be five, T9 battleships? PVE Battles Are you sitting on a large stockpile of credits that you want to burn through? Even the worst of the worst ships can do well in PVE, but this is also a T9 ship with T9 operating costs. I am doubtful that positive income can be had at all, unless you spend cash on the premium camo. The answer is No way in hell. Random Battle Grinding No. Why would you even bring Izumo to the table, when FDG and Iowa are far superior ships? Masochists Yes. I especially recommend playing Izumo with the Ramming build. Think about it. If you ram two ships, that's usually an easy 100k damage game, which should net you zero credit losses or earnings. If you RAM and survive, you get another ten Ramming flags to your account. So if you keep ramming two ships per game, you can have a perpetual XP and flag earning ship that costs zero credits to operate. Collectors Hell No. For one, it's fugly as stacked poop on a platter. Secondly, this is a paper ship with zero historical value, other than the name. Fun Factor If your definition of "Fun" is "Masochism", then refer to the Masochist section. If not, then NO. Final Verdict CESSPOOL - Not only seriously uncompetitive, but is also tied into a massive XP grind POOP - Uncompetitive and needs a serious buff to itself, or serious nerf to opponents AVERAGE - Has strengths and weaknesses, may do one or two things excellently KEEPER - Has more pointy strengths than weaknesses and may do two or more things excellently OVERPOWERED - Seriously, who thought it was a good idea to release it in this state? *PS: If you haven't gotten it already it's a parody and not to be taken seriously
  5. Izumo, el acorazado más polémico de WoWs: Para algunos es un barquito de menos y para otros es un barquito que te salva la batalla. Aclaro que yo estoy en el medio, pero me encantaría mostrar una postal para aquellas gentes que opinan de este acorazado: Si usaste ese barco hasta 5, 10, 20 batallas o nunca, NO SABÉS NADA. Está muy claro que para usar este acorazado es únicamente para personas con mucha paciencia, inteligencia y una muy buena química entre el jugador y el buque. Lo dicho, una fotito para las gentes negativas y me retiro.
  6. Izumo ... How should i play this?

    Hello guys. Hope you can help me again. So last month i did a topic asking which Nation would have the most different feeling from the German BB perspective and IJN kinda won. So I've picked on the IJN and here i am. On this travel/grinding i've heard 2 lines very often. 1. Enjoy until T8. 2. Wait until you get to Izumo. But hold your anticipation (that ship is crap). Needles to say i was very curious. First because i don't take ppl serious all the time and second because Izumo has a reputation worse them Fat Freddy ( and that one was kinda hard to get used to -- aka worst guns in the game (even from a german perspective). So now i have the Izumo. Hurrayy. I'm running a firing prevention/concealment (with adrenaline rush) build. Only 4 games in it. Surprisingly good Broadside angle with all guns to bear. So what should i avoid and how did you guys play and overcome this beast. Free XP jump to Yamato does not count and i don't like that kinda of tricky. Suffering is a path to perfection ... so help me out. Thanks in advance.
  7. My 2nd level guns dont seem to be firing... yes the are on yes I am in range....even under 6KM (range states in port it is over 8 KM) there working fine and then since the last update they have not fired at all Is there a bug I dont know about?
  8. Does the Izumo need a buff

    Does the Izumo need a buff? If so, what do you think they should be? Or maybe it should be replaced entirely?
  9. Yay discounts! I've had the Izumo unlocked for months, a lot of months. Those high tier sales aren't really common. But I was determined to wait until one came along. Today, everything was copacetic. Got coins for a Bismarck I already owned and the Izumo was on sale. I now have one in my port. She is well, different in an ugly way. Is there anyone who really likes her a lot?
  10. Izumo makes a great Ram!

    How to break 100k damage in a stock Izumo. Step 1, Find a almost full hp enemy Missouri. Step 2, Ram them. Not a great game, but my first actual success in the Izumo. Only 230,000 xp to go till the Yamato!
  11. Is the Izumo good or bad?

    Hello. I started playing the game off and on in around september and the IJN BB line in December (I think). I have ground all the way up to a fully upgraded Amagi and I'm 19,000xp away from Izumo. I've played against Izumo's several times and not once have I ever gotten a decent penetration, save a few 4km citadels. Even when they're broadside 17km away. This made me really look forward to getting the Izumo. I still look forward to it, but I've heard a lot about how it's armor sucks and it's one of the worst ships in the game. So I want to know how I should play it stock. What are it's upsides and downsides? How does it compare to Friedrich Der Großer and Iowa? Thanks in advance for your help! P.S. I'm not a great player. I'm probably below average. As one flamer/troll destroyer player told me, my win rate is around 46-47%. I have very good games in the Amagi more often now. (Sorry about task manager being open in the first one. I was still learning how to take screenshots. I appreciate any advice you guys have.
  12. fire points on bb's

    I'm looking to put another tier 4 captain skill on the Izumo, and I'm thinking about putting the fire reduction one that reduces fires to 3 points, so my question is how many points are there in total? Where are they located specifically, and which ones are omitted if I chose to go with it? Also are there any suggestions to the entire captain skills set up?
  13. Teamwork works

    who told you that being a good teammate doesnt pay off?
  14. So I recently just repurchased the IJN Tier IX Izumo because I wanted to play her again since she was unique but suffers quite a bit. The one thing that Izumo players can appreciate is her bow armor but other than that she makes us grind painfully to the Yamato (not saying Izumo is terrible/unplayable but she does have problems and has the lowest win rate). Her vertical dispersion is pretty sporadic and I kind of wished it was more tight since I find that often a perfect broadside shot is ruined by the vertical dispersion (you won't get that second chance after reloading in most cases). If you compared her to the Iowa, she loses on firepower (poor vertical dispersion and slightly lower damage) and Iowa has better AA and mobility (in terms of accelerating the ship forward and backwards, Izumo takes a while to move out of the way). To add more fuel to the problem, Izumo's detection is 18.7 km which makes you a punching bag since she is easily detected and large making CA or DDs want to set you on fire or torpedoe you. I know for a fact that most people would resort to just buffing armor or increase accuracy (the basic stuff) but I thought that their was a more unique and simple way to making her fun and effective in her current state. The Izumo was one of many designs for the Yamato-class battleships and I was browsing through several different phases of these proposed designs. I found one old article on the forum where Tzoli replies with an interesting picture of several different turret configurations of the Yamato-class battleships. Link: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/4219-a-140-series-designs-yamato-class-preliminary-designs/ Scroll down in the comments and you will see Tzoli's picture. I noticed that configuration D was very similar to stock Izumo in the game and I'm guessing that WG just picked a random turret configuration (which in this case is D) for the Izumo. If you take a moment to think, that unconventional turret configuration which is similar to Myoko has problems because you have to rotate the third turret 180 degrees around to bare the guns which is no different from Iowa's/Yamato's turret configuration where 2 turrets in the front and 1 at the rear, it's just that the Izumo have them together in the front. So in conclusion, Izumo still has exactly the same firing arc as Iowa's turret configuration which is why Izumo players rarely show their third turret since it means that you can take substantial amount of damage if you can show your third turret (similar to Iowa's being able to show broadside to bare all of her guns). So what I proposed is that why don't we place the turrets in configuration A (Tzoli pictures, link is above if you missed it) which is exactly like the HMS Nelson's configuration or similar to Mogami/Ibuki firing angle where all three turrets in the front face forward so your third turret would have slightly better firing angle and you don't have to rotate it 180 every time like the current configuration. This would increase the usage of third turret BUT NOT ALWAYS FAVORABLE because at that angle, you still can take decent penetration damage but NOT citadel damage (I tested in a training room firing 406 mm guns at a Izumo to see what is the smallest angle where she receives citadel damage). The reason why I want to point out the weakness of this configuration is I'm sure WG would consider that having an Izumo that can negate damage bow on and able to fire all 9 of her 410 mm guns is borderline broken. Nonetheless, I believe this configuration will improve the Izumo and open more options to the play since it would allow Izumo players to decide when to use her full strength in a more convenient way. I played the Mogami (Configuration A of Tzoli's picture) and I noticed that I wanted to be more aggressive since all of her guns faces forward on the bow while Myoko (Configuration D) I have to time it because I have to show more broadside than Mogami to get that third turret to work. Feel free to leave an opinion below (not saying I demand this to happen but maybe someone higher up will consider this suggestion if there's enough support). Here's a video of HMS Nelson for a better illustration of the proposed turret configuration. Thanks for making this far on the post! ;^)
  15. Izumo Armor/Gun Penetration bugged?

    So to start with, I am sorry for no stats at this time, I will work on getting solid replays and info soon. My question is, would it be possible to go over the Izumo's current Gun penetration stats, and its armor stats, As it seems to be faring very poorly compared to my North Carolina. Looking at the armor viewer, I have 32mm of bow armor( meaning if I understand Overmatch correctly, only a Yamato should overmatch my bow). I have had the Tier 9 German BB( cant remember its name) deal heavy damage from 8km through the bow( as in I watched the shells hit my bow. My other problem is it seems that my Izumo's guns lack penetration against same tier or lower vessels. Im not sure if that is a bug, a typo in the code, or something else, but the North Carolina's guns pen vastly better than the Izumo's. If anyone would like to help me with info, maybe testing, I would appreciate it.
  16. For those battleship players out there, when you first saw the Izumo, what did you think? Were you excited at how massive she was? Were you confused about her abstract and none too wise gun layout? Or were you like me, and thought "damn that's one ugly ship". Izumo's got three problems. The first is that her secondary layout is just as atrocious as her main batteries. If she had a staggered layout like Yamato's and other battleships, more would be able to get into the fight. The second is her main batteries themselves. I think we're all aware of how trolly her dispersion is, it reminds me of the derpgun in the ISU back in WoT, and her asinine battery layout means that she needs to expose that delicious rump to enemy battleships. Finally my biggest problem is the way she looks. Izumo's problem is the same problem I had with the Fuso. She looks lazy, incomplete, I feel like I'm still on the stock hull when I look at her, like there's something big missing. Iowa has incredible speed, better battery layout, better secondary layout, and vastly superior AA. Old Fritz has a gun layout that, while different, is complimented by her armor scheme. Couple that with better AA and the best secondaries of her peers, and between these two gorgeous ladies Izumo starts feeling like Kaiser Wilhelm, that is to say, inadequate. The ultimate kicker is that Izumo's battery layout works against her armor scheme. Everyone's aware of the different A-140 designs that WG pulled from to create Izumo, and there's one in particular I wish they would have chosen. Specifically, design A-140 "A". I believe that Izumo needs something to put her back in the spotlight, and one of the best things to do would be to give us a tier 9 Nelson crewed my moonspeakers. Let's be honest, is Nelson gonna be tier 9? No way. probably 7 or 8 if we really stretch it. I just remember a certain ship in the game, I think it was called... Murmansk, that's the one. If we can have a Russian *Omaha that's living proof of Russian Bias, why can't we have a Japanese Nelson?
  17. A question about Iowa v Izumo

    Maybe just over a week ago I got the Iowa, and man is she great. She can't turn on a dime like the NC, but she's quicker, better shell velocity, more consistent armor, better AA. After a few games in her I started thinking about her IJN counterpart: Izumo. From what I've seen the Iowa is generally considered the better ship. Stats wise she leads the Izumo on everything for the past 2 weeks, but they are very close to each other in every regard save planes destroyed. Indeed, all non-premium BB's seem to be very close performing for the past 2 weeks. Yet the idea that the Iowa is fantastic and the Izumo is just kinda "meh" still seems to persist in the games that I play. Now, the glorious Yamato is known as being probably the best BB in game. The Montana is a better ship vs the Iowa, and she's holding her own stats wise against the Yamato, but in a 1 v 1 fight, the Yamato will win with the same level captain. Some people refuse to upgrade to Montana because the Iowa is so close to her with just one less turret, but Izumo drivers are aiming for the Yamato. They don't want to stop at tier nine when they're so close to those 18.1" guns. So, I was wondering if the Iowa being praised for being a better ship than the Izumo a by product of the tier 10's in their respective lines? The Iowa has less firepower than the Montana, but she has more speed and a tighter turning circle. The Izumo on the other hand has few if any advantages over the Yamato, other than maybe her close 3rd turret makes it fire at more predictable angles to target. If you said you stopped at the Iowa because you didn't think the Meh-tana was worth it, nobody would think twice, but if you said you stopped at Izumo, people would think that you were crazy for not continuing on.
  18. So I have the infamous Izumo, not fully upgraded yet, but I was wondering from the experience of other Izumo captains, is the upgraded propulsion even worth spending the xp/credits on? All it does is increase the top speed by 0.8 knots, with no visible effect on any other stats. Doesn't seem worth it to me. Is there something I'm missing? Or should I just skip the propulsion upgrade.
  19. Ibuki or Izumo?

    So, I've come to the time again where I must choose between two ships. I've heard they are both, while not terrible, sub-par ships compared to the ships that they can see. So, which one should I go for first?
  20. Missing 360 degree turrets?

    Is it me or are there a lot of ships that have turrets that could turn 360 degrees? For example, Furutaka, Aoba, Myoko, and Takao-class cruisers say nothing of train restrictions on the turrets in the design, thus enabling at least the their No.2 turret to rotate 360 degrees, and possibly the No.4 turret on Myoko and Takao-class. The Izumo's No.2 turret should also definitely be able to do a full rotation, yet none of them can. Feel free to list any other ships that should be able to do full rotations below.
  21. The Amagi turned out to be a direct downgrade from the Nagato; in spite of having exactly the same guns, except more of them, the Amagi displayed bizarre scatter / inaccuracy. Fuso pours out citadels like water coming from a hose. Nagato produces citadels at a decent pace, but the Amagi constantly misses, often the entire salvo. I would get 1 citadel out of 30+ hits, and sometimes none at all. It was somewhat weak in protection, and its AA wasn't that great -- it could not really protect itself from a serious air attack. I never exclaimed things like "FOR ****-ING REAL???" and "woooooOOOOOW!" so often as I did playing the Amagi. This really illustrates the divorce from reality by many frequent forum posters. So after free-XP-ing through to the Izumo I sold the Amagi. I have enough BBs that can hit things regularly and give me more than one citadel in a match. Now, on the Izumo. Only played it a few times as of yet. It seems be more accurate, but also seems to be seriously lacking in protection. I do like how to actually pens BBs frontally.
  22. Hey guys. A short video on a duel I had with a Montana. Covers the whys and how's of the engagement.
  23. I have a question as to specifically what the new shells in the update will mean for the Izumo players (me). Ex. More pen? or what the top shells do differently?
  24. hola acabo de comprar la modificación 3 de la batería principal para mi izumo es una mejora mal explicada esperaba que hiciera mas rápidas las torretas no mas lentas era mucho mas útil mejorar el alcance en su lugar como pudo recuperar mis créditos?
  25. I need people's opinions, I have 200k free xp saved up that I was going to use to grab an Izumo with upgrades (or keep grinding the Amagi and mostly skip the Izumo for the Yamato), however with the RU CAs coming out soon I have been considering just waiting for them and getting through T8 at the start just for fun. My question is, do people think that the RU CA line will play more like the USN CAs or the IJN CAs or more like the T8 premium RU CA or something else? I have looked at the stats however I am having a hard time understanding how they will 'feel', specifically will the gun arcs be more IJN like (flat) or USN like (arcs) do people think? Thus far, my two favorite lines have been IJN CAs and RU DDs overall however the IJN BBs are something different and the Yamato looks like fun. Ship Line My Enjoyment of it overall IJN BBs Medium / something good for off days IJN CAs Very Fun IJN DDs Fun USN BBs Not very fun USN CAs Not very fun USN DDs Medium RU DDs Very Fun Likely the best thing to do is just wait and see the reviews when they come out / etc. however I just wanted to get people's thoughts on it all. Thank ya kindly for your input!
×