Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'montana'.



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
    • Player Gatherings and Events
    • Community Programs Corner
  • Feedback and Support
    • Support
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Contests and Competitions
    • Clan and Divisions Hub
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 11 results

  1. Avenge_December_7

    Help With Montana In Randoms

    I've been having a ball with Montana in ranked, and Iowa in both ranked and randoms. However, for reasons I cannot understand, I cannot seem to make Montana work in randoms. My WR/average damage with Montana in ranked and mid-high tier USN BBs in both randoms/ranked are all quite decent IMO, but in contrast I believe even my lower-tier random battleship stats like Iowa's eclipse my Montana stats in randoms. And I did very much enjoy playing Iowa. Even with the small number of battles played, IMO my Montana stats are a joke. If it helps, usually my tactics when using Montana in ranked are to kite, take opportunistic broadside shots when I can, use HE against bow-on battleships, and try and force crossfires. However I've found that 99% of my time in randoms with Montana is kiting away against large groups of enemies with very little I can do to return effective fire Is there a difference between how one plays Montana in randoms in comparison to ranked, or in between Montana and Iowa? I really would like to improve my Montana play, or at least not be a drag on every team I'm in.
  2. After getting Alaska (thanks again for the skill suggestions) & Halsey ... I decided to reopen the USN BB line ... languishing at the New Mexico for the past year. I bought Colorado, assigned Halsey, and put him on Alaska for retraining ... planning out an end state "combo" skill build, I didn't have enough points ... who does? I started with: PT, EL ... EM, AR ... SI, BoS ... CE, FP ..... but that's 20 points ... so I checked out Little White Mouse's review for Alaska ... LWM listed: PT, PM ... EM, AR ... BoS, SI ... FP, CE ... notice a pattern? and also 20 points I kept messing around with a lot of combinations which included JoaT, HA, PM, etc ... and finally came up with PT, EL, PM ... EM ... Bos, SI ... FP, CE ... 19 points ... picks up PM and removes AR ... and even more "tankiness" I wondered, is AR that critical for a BB with 30 sec reload and Alaska with 17.6? I do love it (on faster firing guns) ... but that pesky point thing. Right before your HP goes to zero, reload is only 20% less ... e.g. 24.1 and 14.1 for Montana & Alaska respectively. Any thoughts? TIA
  3. I won't write all of pros and cons of Montana and Grober Kurfurst. Montana, despite of her lack of caliber, has very weird citadel protection. She has 260mm citadel belt located right under her 400mm(main upper belt) part. Iowa has thicker armor (270mm+38mm AT bulge) This thin part makes her very unreliable of protecting her citadels. Even moskva in 10km can penetrate her citadel in impact angle of 40' and Jean Bart's 15inch in 20km 20~30' (my experience when shooting montana) Every other T10 battleship(except yamasashi's cheek) can easily stop heavy AP shells when angled slightly(15~20' in long range, 30~40'in medium to close range) Does this unreliability work as concept of USN battleship line, or Montana? If not, I can strongly advise this part of armor is fixed in order to balance T10s. So how much? I hope 400mm(same as upper main belt) especially her armor is not inclined to 15'(like Iowa) GK is meant to take role of close range fighter. However,German battleship get their very bad gun arc in T9, T10. You can see turret stop rotating without any obstacles. This factor greatly limits performance of GK (which is meant to be charging.) The range and accuracy, are limiting factor due to her concept.(frankly, she needs least 21.6km range, same as Bismarck) But gun arc is different story. It is just irritating feature that does not accord to German Battleship concept. Thus, I greatly suggest her gun arc to be buffed to level of Bismarck.
  4. Yamato (Japan) Pros 18.1 inch main caliber guns that can overmatch up to 32mm bows (Republique, etc) Quite sturdy when bow on Great torpedo protection Cons Cheeky citadel (lewd) Very very sluggish, ship itself and turret traverse Not the top AA Montana (USA) Pros Very accurate guns Heavy hitting 'murica freedom SHS shells : great for citadeling and hitting deck armors for bow on targets. Great AA Good maneuverability Waterline citadel makes it trolly to hit. Can opt to slot secondaries or AA without forsaking accuracy. Cons Very slow shells, bad for sniping Vulnerable to IFHE spam Grosser Kurfurst (German) Pros Very tanky, great health pool Good secondaries that pen 31(128mm), 34(150mm), with IFHE all can pen 32mm (most bows of battleships) German hydro 6k Turtleback armor scheme, making it hard to citadel at close distances Fast turret traverse Cons Gets a lot of pens everywhere Very big and sluggish, easy to hit German gun dispersion BAD BAD concealment Republique (French) Pros Very accurate guns, good pen even at distances Great HE rivaling Conq fire chance Engine boost for flanking and kiting Good maneuverability High fire chance secondaries with long-range French turtleback, not as sturdy, but still usable Cons 32mm everywhere (vulnerable to IFHE spam and nose cits) Guns in A-X position + 8 guns (need to show a lot of broadside for a full salvo) Secondaries are made of glass Conquerer (British) Kremlin (Russian) Well, that was my impression of the 5 ships of the tech tree as an average player. I haven't got the Conq or Kremlin yet, so not much to put on here :)
  5. PaulaDeen

    Russian vs. US Battleships

    Hello, post is as titled, I'm looking for some first hand comparison between Russian and US battleships. I've heard that the Russian battleships dominate in close quarters combat, but fairs quite poorly in long range. Is their long range really that poor? I have a North Carolina and I should be able to finish getting my Vladivostok today. I love both BB lines but I'm not sure which I want to bring to t10 first. I guess I'm just looking for some insight from people with both Monty and Kremlin. Pros and cons of both? Is Kremlin really that bad for long range engagements? Is Monty in a good spot now a days? Welcoming all insights and opinions! Thanks:) Paula Deen Butter Captain Butter Queen
  6. So I was shocked to see it the other day. And I've looked into the handful of threads about this online. Just really curious if this was a one-in a million shot and/or a neglected bug in the armour that a few people mentioned? Do the numbers make sense and that this should happen. Included 4 pictures in the spoilers that I think show the shell that caused it.
  7. Have all BBs except Montana, prefer Yamato with legendary upgrade and Republique without one. Conqueror works well, but has unique play style that often goes contrary with the things I like to do in BBs, particularly soaking damage in mid range while dealing primarily AP damage back. GK does shine in close range, but close range is very costly in current meta, with gems like Worcester and Harugumo in addition to the usual HE and torp spam you have to deal with on the front line, all that makes me feel like giant German Piñata. Having said that GK does seem to get a new lease on life in the arms race, where people like to get in close. Does Montana bring something interesting into the mix?
  8. cool_boat_guy

    Sorry

    First forum post and its gotta be this...to anyone that was in my montana games this morning, my game kept crashing. Put in a ticket to support so hopefully they can figure it out, but im really sorry. Would try loading back in and it just crashed to the desktop again. Kind of annoying. Again, sorry
  9. Forward: The purpose of these proposed changes is to make the Montana both more rewarding to play, and also more historically accurate. I'm a pretty big history buff, and currently I see several historically incorrect armor values for Montana. While it's true that game balance should take precedence over historical accuracy, I believe the following proposal can fulfill both. My goal for these changes to the Montana is to make the ship more rewarding for skilled play while making mistakes and poor play more punishable, while also reducing vulnerability to certain "skill gap reducing" elements that have been introduced (*cough* Conqueror *cough*). Some of these changes also have historical precedence. While "realism" may draw some skepticism, I want to point out that for all the liberties that WG takes from realism, they generally do not deviate from historical armor values. My images are scans from Friedman and Garzke & Dulin. Armor thickness corrections: The Montana in-game is missing a substantial amount of deck armor. As designed, the Montana's weather deck is 57 mm, while the main armor deck is 179-184 mm (179 is for the inboard section, 184 is for the outboard section). Currently, the in-game values are 38 mm and 150 mm respectively. The most beneficial aspect of this change would be protection against Graf Zeppelin AP bombs. I personally think that those bombs are detrimental for the game, and the current Montana is quite vulnerable to them. Giving Montana her historical designed deck thicknesses would be an indirect way of curbing those bombs' effectiveness. I can see that a 57 mm weather deck is arguably too strong, as it would resist the HE shells of Hindenburg, Roon, Hipper, and Prinz Eugen, as well as IFHE 203 mm guns. As such, I think a 50 mm weather deck is an acceptable compromise, as this would only affect Henri IV and non-German IFHE 203 mm guns which are quite rare. Of course, AP damage against a broadside Montana would remain unchanged (or even greater, see below), which again plays into the theme of these proposed changes rewarding angling while punishing broadsiding. Current Proposed Weather deck (bomb deck) 38 mm 50 mm Main armor deck 150 mm 179 mm inboard 184 mm outboard Another change, though less urgent in my opinion, is a reduction in the rear citadel bulkhead to 387 mm from the current 457 mm in-game, as the Montana was designed with a 457 mm bulkhead fore and 387 mm bulkhead aft. Furthermore, the citadel roof over the 16" gun magazines should be 25 mm rather than 19 mm currently in-game. The main battery turret should also have its 4.5" (114 mm) STS backing plate included, because that is a huge amount of armor missing, thicker than the deck armor of some battleships like KGV. Citadel changes: I'm proposing slightly raising the citadel over the machinery spaces. I think a good balance would be about 2/3 of the old citadel height, roughly where the 16 mm splinter deck underneath the main armor deck would be. Note that the raised portion of the citadel is only about half of the entire length of the citadel, so the actual increased area ("danger zone") is quite modest. However, with good aim, sailing carelessly broadside will incur harsher punishment. Here are two visual references of what I'm proposing. The new citadel roof over the machinery spaces should be 16 mm. This does mean including a part of the third deck above the machinery spaces in the citadel volume. Note that these spaces contain boiler uptakes and secondary magazines. However, because of how segregated these secondary magazine spaces are, as well as how far they're placed from the main battery magazines, the risk of losing the entire ship from secondary magazine would be rather small. 5" powder cartridges also tend to burn rather than detonate. Anyways, I think for balancing purposes this is a reasonable addition. While I agree with the 0.6.6 citadel lowering of Iowa and Missouri, I feel that the lowering for Montana was somewhat excessive; unlike the Iowa sisters with their 307 mm belts (only 2 mm more than the North Carolina), the Montana has very beefy belt armor of 409 mm, almost the same as Yamato's 410 mm, which means that angling is much more viable and even at moderate angles it's capable of defeating battleship AP shells at medium ranges. While the old Montana citadel would be too vulnerable, as it was taller (due to lack of angled ourboard deck armor) and much longer than Yamato's citadel, a moderate raise of the citadel of the machinery spaces will make it such that angling is rewarded while showing broadside is more punished. That being said, because of how sluggish Montana's turning is (she's got the slowest rudder shift), I feel that a citadel raise needs to come with a change in turning ability as well, namely reducing the stock rudder shift from 22.2 seconds to about 18 or 19 seconds. As a side note, in case someone brings it up, I also think that the citadel for the Conqueror, Lion, Monarch, and KGV should be raised, especially at the boiler rooms which should be above the waterline at proper historical height, but that is for another topic. Overall, these changes came from gameplay observation and experience where I feel that the Montana is a bit too forgiving of showing broadside (though not nearly as immune as Conqueror), while also being vulnerable to "skill gap reducing" elements like Graf Zeppelin AP bombs. Hopefully these changes would allow the Montana's performance to be more dependent on the skill of the player. While these changes may seem unnecessary, I think it's worthwhile to test them. It can be tested using the same method as Henri IV, where the reload booster was tested on Brennus and given to testers. WG can make a USS Ohio with these changes and see how it plays out. EDIT: Yes, I'm aware that British battleship citadels like Conqueror's is more problematic than Montana's, but I've talked that in another topic where I proposed a similar raise. Again, that's for another discussion.
  10. Hello everyone, recently I produced a YouTube video featuring replays of the USS Montana at tier 10. If you are bored and can use a distraction today, feel free to check it out. But rather than a typical ship review video, I've kind of noticed that the footage in the video showcases various issues and things that can be improved with game play at tier 10. Among the things I noticed (and suggestions for improvement): #1 Most maps features a Littoral environment with close by shorelines, islands, shallow water, and straits. I think although ships did fight in environments that fall into this category in history, it did not happen nearly as frequently as it has in game. Arguably it's probably not a good idea to sail capital ships in such confined waters in real life due to various asymmetrical threats that they cannot sufficiently defend against. Mines, attacks from much smaller units like torpedo boats that thrive in the environment, shore batteries, air attacks, arguably even sabotage largely renders heavy ships vulnerable in a littoral environment. For example, in the Battle of Surigao strait, the IJN Fuso and Yamashiro fought a futile suicidal action in such confined and unsuitable environment. Meanwhile, the attack on Pearl Harbor, the British raid on Taranto, and the Italian raid of Alexandria were extreme examples of what happened to capital ships when they can't maneuver while attacked. Obviously the game cannot be completely realistic or faithful to history, but maybe it wouldn't be a bad thing to look into this and come up with maps that features different types of environment. #2 The roles caps play in game aren't always good nor are they always conducive of good game play action. I think winning a fight in terms of damages, kills, and spots while losing because the enemy has more points is not an ideal situation. When there are more than two caps (i.e. WOT style set up) in game, the presence of the caps alone often promotes passive game play. It takes away the focus of the fight from engaging and annihilating the enemy. Rather camo, capping, spotting, and area denial become important. I think it is rare to have a situation in the history of modern naval warfare where it was key to control or contain a small patch of the ocean like a cap on WOWS. Sure if there's an amphibious or combined arms operation at play, it could happen. But then that's not a factor in WOWS. When a team's stealthier ships are not up to par or incidentally get taken out early, the team will watch victory slipping away due to having a major disadvantage to contest the caps. At this point, the team with the points lead often farm damage and/or hide and milk the caps, while the losing team becomes either passive or reckless: either way it often ends badly. What if we try to set up games that has no caps at all? Not even 2? This will bring the focus of the fight back onto engaging the enemy. The points count could be determined by the number and types of surviving ships, like the way historians look at the tonnage sunk and human casualty after the Battle of Jutland? What if as an alternative to having caps, the game offer an option for damaged ships to withdraw by offering them a chance to limp away to a designated part of the map's edge? I think this is also a game play mechanic faithful to history as the withdrawing of damaged ships often have strategic implications. For example, the USS Enterprise was seriously damaged in the Pacific multiple times but its survival proven crucial. Meanwhile the survival and withdraw of the German High Sea's fleet's capital ships after the Battle of Jutland was key to the strategic situation then. I think it would be good to make people fight eagerly and then withdraw. It's a better situation than the passiveness or recklessness found in game now. #3 Some maps by design forces a team to split up into multiple sub fleets to contest different areas of the map. This seems like a forced gamble, and it often was in history. Sometimes a smaller or weaker subfleet's demise in the hands of a stronger opponent often snowballs quickly and makes the team's success elsewhere irrelevant. Some maps also kind of isolate the subfleets by the design of their geography so that once the team has been split, it's hard to once again combined forces for cooperative play: distance is too far for effective engagement or timely relocation and line of sight is blocked... This often means doing your part isn't enough for a win just cause the team kind of went the wrong way or ran into the wrong enemies. #4 Ships, battleships in particular tend to not move much but rather try to function as bow tanking artillery barges. I would say that usually the Yamatos are probably the worse offenders of this. In a sense I don't blame them cause they have the guns that can go through bow plating, their citadels are exposed on the side, they aren't particularly fast, nor do their turrets turn quickly enough for shooting while turning. But ultimately this situation is kind of odd and not fun. It penalizes ships that don't have most of its firepower concentrated in the front and devolves games into a strange naval version of trench warfare where ships try to hide while bow on behind islands and mountains and take pot shots at each other like soldiers in neighboring trenches tossing grenades over the top. Although nobody likes to eat citadels, I still think this situation is not good for the game. #5 Destroyers' playerbase seems to have the highest skill floor and ceiling in game at tier 10. As a BB player, it seems that sometimes the cap situation is already a done deal due to the DDs even before I get to engage anyone. A good DD player can take out a not so good DD player extremely quickly. How good your DD is often puts a hard limit on how the rest of your team will fare. If the friendly DDs die early or are less skilled, the BBs often suffer tremendously due to not being able to anticipate enemy intention or have sufficient situational awareness. #6 I in particular dislike having torpedo boat style Japanese DDs (Shimakaze line) on either teams. As enemies they often come in divisions and can torp spam and/or snipe in ways that's almost impossible to counter in a BB. Ever been targeted by 45 torps at once? I have. It was not pretty. As allies, the Japanese DDs often do not counter enemy DDs. They might spot and cap. But when they run into the enemy DDs they will often run away while dumping their torps which aren't always good for attacking DDs. I've noticed that many of them almost never fire their guns. An enemy's on 500hp at 6km? They fire torps but their guns stay silent. They are also often so obsessed and tunnel-visioned that they will try to saturate an area where friendly BBs are engaged in a brawl with the enemy with torps. I've lost count how many times I've been torpedoed by friendly DDs while brawling. (my video shows this happening 3 times...) #7 Ironically, at tier 10 cruisers seem to play very differently versus at mid tiers, especially from a BB player's perspective. Maybe due to their vulnerabilities to big guns, they'll often play 2nd line at most. This often means they aren't close enough to the action to counter DDs or close enough to the BBs to provide AA. So much so that DDs and BBs often fight their own fight without help. The cruiser at tier 10 seem to focus on farming damage and opportunistic moves, on a good day they usually chime in and engage enemies that are already being engaged, distracted, or has overextended. But them as a defensive screen and support against enemies BBs can't see or maneuver against, often don't exist... Just some of my observations thus far. I'm obviously a fan of the game and I want it to improve and fulfill its potential. Feel free to discuss share your thoughts on the points I brought up and how things could be improved.
×