Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'usn bb'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News and Announcements
    • 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 13 results

  1. 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?
  2. This change really needs to be undone. This is up near the top of the list of the dumbest changes to the game. It has completely ruined fighting Iowa / Montana. This allows complete potatoes to just sail full broadside and ignore what should be massive damage. Instead, they only take 20-30k damage, when it should be 50-60k+ damage. So many times now I have been in a situation where an enemy Montana lived even though I should have deleted him. A full Montana salvo and I only do 20-30k damage against a full broadside battleship beyond dumb. If players are going to make low tier mistakes in high tier ships, they need to be punished for it. The citadel change removed even more skill from the equation, as it gives potatoes a more even ground against skilled players. The "buff" to Montana's citadel needs to go.
  3. Original RU Forum link: http://forum.worldofwarships.ru/index.php?/topic/84011-%D0%B0%D0%BF-%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8B/page__p__3398767#entry3398767 Q. There were rumors that in 0.6.4 Montana citadel would not be so high, so that it is not so easily beaten. Is this true? A. The truth is that we are considering such an opportunity, but it is certainly not in 0.6.4.
  4. I could make this a very long post, but I won't. Keeping it short and concise. Ran a few tests yesterday in a training room with a friend in a Yamato while I was in Iowa. I decided to test and see how Yamato interacts with Iowa's armor. (Semi-formal) Results: From around 30-35 degrees, the main armor belt is effectively immune to Yamato shells (bounces). 30-35 degrees is too steep of an angle to protect the frontal bulkhead, thus you will take citadel damage through the bow. This is just as I expected. At a flatter angle of ~40-42 degrees, the main armor belt is still resistant to Yamato shells (multiple clean bounces, but not citadel hits). However, the frontal bulkhead appears to still be penetrated, and you take citadel damage. This is not exactly what I expected. Angling the main armor belt at ~40 degrees should theoretically allow shells to bounce off the main armor belt as well as cause an internal ricochet off the frontal bulkhead. But quite clearly, that is not happening. Any time a shell would enter underneath the frontal turrets, I would immediately take citadel damage. So, should Iowa's citadel be lowered? Yes, and no. I still think I need to run another test, but this time I want to see if there is a bug with Iowa's citadel, where it is extending out too far forward. It seems fairly consistent that even placing the frontal bulkhead at a steep angle, I still take citadel damage from a Yamato. If you angle correctly, the main armor belt should not be causing you any problems, but there seems to be a massive (and I stress that) weakness with the frontal bulkhead. I will try to test this at some point by placing an Iowa full broadside to a Yamato and having the Yamato shoot straight through the bow at a perpendicular angle to determine at what point the citadel starts to take damage. Right now though, I can say that Iowa should probably have the citadel lowered. But that could cause problems, as I have not tested this against any other ship besides Yamato. I can't say the same for Montana, as I do not have either a Yamato or a Montana to test this on.
  5. Ever wondered if the Arizona was worth all the salt and upset about selling a memorial ship and whether or not WarGaming would faithfully recreate a USN BB without injecting some alternate desire to make it awful to keep it from performing well? Well check it out: In short: It's the super New Mexico... which is a funny statement because the New Mexico is more accurately a super Pennsylvania Class (which is what the Arizona is) so what does that mean? It means good maneuverability, slow speed, armored to the teeth and punchy as heck! The only thing she gives up to the New Mexico is in the Anti Aircraft Department and honestly, that can be worked around quite easily!
  6. Well I just added another Tier IX to my port, after getting the funds from selling off a few Japanese destroyers. I figure I will have to adapt to her, but I figure I will have to move up eventually to get Montana. Simultaneously going up the USN DD, CA, and BB lines is taking quite a while. It currently looks like Gearing might by my first Tier X, with Des Moines and Montana following. I plan on going full concealment (the same as North Carolina) and using the USN special accuracy mod (-11% dispersion). Unfortunately, I do not have enough free XP to get the B or C hull from the start, so I will be playing Iowa stock until I can get to the B hull. I assume that I should get C hull first and then the engine upgrade? Or is the 33 knots of speed that important.
  7. Well... with 5.11 now out, I've had the opportunity to look into the armor profiles of all the USN Battleships in the game and compare them to their real life values. Here are the "fruits" of my labor. Of course, speculations as to the causes for this will be omitted. South Carolina Class BB's: - Center Section of Citadel Belt Armor lower than ends near turrets? - Center Section of Citadel Deck Armor lower than ends near turrets? I can find no sources that substantiate this reduction in armor at the most vulnerable point on the ship. It also is contrary to most naval design at the time. There also aren't many sources on these ships, FWIW. Wyoming Class BB's: - The A Hull armor deck (shown in casemate view) should be 2.5" over critical components and 1.5" over less critical components. In game it is 1" over the whole thing. This impacts the Arkansas Beta too. This was upgraded to 3.5" during the modernization of both the Wyoming and Arkansas as part of the 3000 ton allowance in the Washington Navy Treaty for upgrades. - Barbette Armor (the turret ring armor) is only 10" in game, was 11" in real life. - Aft Armor Belt is 89mm but should be 130mm. This is easily seen in the armor viewer over the rear rudder. - Wyoming with B Hull sits significantly higher in the water than she did at full combat load. The only photos I could find of her sitting that high in the water were when she was missing turrets 3 and 4 when she was used as a training ship in the 1930's. Arkansas herself, well into the 1940's sat at the same height as the A hull did... this is because they were only allowed to add 3000 tons of displacement to the ship during the modernization... she got heavier, not lighter... she should sit no higher in the water than the stock hull. New York Class BB's: - Turret Tops and Sides have more armor than in real life. This is the only discrepancy I can find in the armor and it's a buff... One that I actually remember them adding during Beta as they were frequently losing turrets. New Mexico Class BB's: - Conning Tower Thickness is too high? I'm getting conflicting numbers from various sources. The New Mexico's were a lot like the preceding Pennsylvania Class BB's with exception being to the longer 14" barrels... the Pennsylvania's had the conning tower thickness we have in game, however other sources (from Wikipedia) state a lower value? Colorado Class BB's: - Barbette Armor is missing 10mm - Deck Armor is modeled wrong: Should be 1.75" STS deck with a 1.75" Nickel Steel armor on it over non-critical spaces with a 4.5" of STS and 1.75" backing plate over critical spaces with a 1" top weather deck. North Carolina Class BB's: - Missing .19mm of STS Backing Plate used on the Primary Belt. - Missing 3mm of Class A armor on the lower belt in addition to the 19mm of STS Backing Plate - Potentially Missing A LOT of citadel deck armor. Currently the armor profiler doesn't show the main armor deck at all so unknown if it exists in game or not... the citadel roof is at 19mm, and the top weather deck at 37mm. The deck should consist of the following: Center section of ship - 36mm STS backing plate supporting 91mm of Class B, Ends of Armored Citadel (near turrets) - 36mm of STS backing plate supporting 104mm of Clss B. Top weather/decapping deck is modeled correctly. - Conning Tower Roof is missing 5mm of Armor Iowa Class BB's: - Missing 22mm of STS Backing Plate to the Primary Belt - Missing 3mm of Class A on the primary armor belt - Front Bulkhead missing 3mm for Iowa Spec 11.3" front bulkhead... a lot if using Missouri/Wisconsin front bulkhead of 14.5" - Front Bulkhead is tapered in thickness. I find no data supporting a tapered front bulkhead - Missing 13.4mm of STS in front of the armor belt in the "torpedo bulge" area (currently listed as 25mm with the correct 38mm above it) - Lower citadel plate is missing 44mm of Class B armor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is the area on the lowest part of the citadel box behind the most water and torpedo bulge... unknown how this effects durability. - Turret Face armor is missing 64mm STS Backing Plate - Turret sides, top and rear are missing 19mm of STS Backing Plates Montana Class BB's: - Missing 25mm of STS Backing plate on primary belt - Front and rear bulkheads again taper in thickness (no sources confirming this) - Turret Face Armor missing 114.3mm of Armor. I'm assuming a mix of STS backing plate and Class B. - Turret roof missing 3mm of armor - Turret sides and roof missing unknown quantity of STS backing plate (most likely 19-25mm of STS) - Weather deck missing 47mm of decking over citadel box - Primary Armor Deck missing 1.25" STS backing plate - Primary Armor Deck Plate (the Class B) is 3mm too thick - Weather Decking is thinner over armored citadel box than at bow and stern? Can't find any sources saying this is what was suggested for final design. It's also currently less than the Iowa before her... a highly doubtful prospect given the increase in armor on the Montana over the Iowa to have a large immunity zone against the Mark 8 Super Heavy AP-Capped shell. Those are all the big errors that I see in the USN BB line's armor profiles. Some of them are downright mind boggling and explain the lack of durability of the ship (looking at you Montana and Iowa). The ignoring of the STS backing plates and weather decks is a huge punch in the groin to USN BB's. There is A LOT of armor missing from some critical components of the ship if you take the STS out. Any doubts about the armor capabilities of STS are easily dismissed considering it was used extensively for that purpose on cruisers and battleships prior to the large quantities of Class A and Class B armor steels. Plenty of sources put it's armor capabilities between Class B (being the best against capped shells) and Class A.
  8. 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.
  9. I would like to see what the rest of the forums think about North Carolina and Amagi. I know in the past we had people rant and rave about how Amagi was some super battleship that was "the best Tier IX batteship" in the game, but I hardly see any of that anymore. North Carolina has received numerous buffs, and some even claimed they were equal before the buffs ever happened. I now have both of these ships, and to me North Carolina is the superior ship. But I know that my opinion is typically the exact opposite of others (and oft disregarded), so I have opted to ask the forums instead.
  10. Full Album: http://imgur.com/a/GmFEq Such a sad loss. I got over 200k damage with a High Caliber/Confederate. I was top on XP and outscored the #2 spot by ~500 XP (with only the top 2 scoring over 1k base XP). We even had an AFK DD and another who I suspect of being a bot. Aside from that, my matches in North Carolina so far (although they are few, only 9 so far) have been quite good. I can say with confidence that I like North Carolina far more than Amagi. The guns are simply better shell for shell. The AA on North Carolina is astronomical. I have no need for extra gun range at all, so I went with the AA guns range and it is just disgusting. The ship is no where near as maneuverable as Colorado, but she still handles quite well. 13.7km detection even without Concealement Expert. What the hell. This is stupid hilarious. And to think that it can get even better. The armor holds up decently well. As long as you don't derp around showing sides to everyone, you can tank quite well. This ship is just great all around. I highly recommend anyone on the fence of considering stopping the USN BB line to rethink. The grind through Colorado, while not horrible but bad at times, is completely worth it. To compare my current Tier VIII Battleship statistics: Icon Name Tier Type Nation Battles ▼ WR Dmg XP K/D Sh☠ Pl☠ Srv MBH TH WTR Tirpitz 8 BB Germany 66 65.15% 68,136 1,518 1.6 1.1 3.0 33% 36% 15% 1,336 Amagi 8 BB Japan 30 50.00% 68,892 1,187 1.5 1.0 2.3 30% 34% 0% 1,140 North Carolina 8 BB USA 9 66.67% 79,555 1,960 1.3 0.9 5.6 33% 34% 0% 1,452 The forward firepower of North Carolina is incredible. I still use the No.3 turret quite often, but if I don't have time (or I want to be extra safe) the front turrets still do the job very well. Being able to sling 6 shells forward instead of 4 is so much better. I was super excited to get North Carolina, and now I didn't believe it would be this good.
  11. So, we all mostly know by now, that at some point the current BB lines will be splitting, with more ships being added for our playing delight. We all have our ships that we want the most, and so do I, but I was wondering about that lately.... The ship I want the most in this game which I do think they will add when the line splits, is the Pennsylvania class BB (not the Arizona obviously), but what tier do you think it would be best at? I just honestly want to hear what your guy's ideas are for if/when that ship gets added. I'm thinking either tier V or VI, given that the New Mexico is pretty damn close to what the Pennsylvania class is, ie pretty much the same turrets and a very similar hull design. So what do you guys think? What tier should she be at? What other USN BBs do you guys want? Let the discussion, commence!
  12. Hey everyone, it's UrPeaceKeeper! I started this video series on the USN BB line and how I personally play each one. There are some good tips and tricks on how to play each and every one of them so I thought I should share in the New Player section as well as the USN BB discussion subsection. The USS South Carolina video is very important to watch if you want to know how I recommend setting up your BB Commander skills. Each video will cover the various credit upgrades I recommend for the ship. I'm up to the New York at the moment but plan to continue on down the line to the Montana (which I have! ) USS South Carolina: The USS Wyoming: The USS New York: As always, like comment subscribe! I'm always looking for ways to improve these videos!
  13. U.S. battleships are interesting to say the least. They are slower and have shorter ranges than their Japanese counterparts. Their secondaries are lacking. You may be saying something like "Sounds like there's no reason to play them over the Japanese line," right about now. There is. Let me explain. "Okay Wash, tell me why I should play the USN line." Well, for starters most of them have better armor. Yep. They can take a beating. Good thing too since you will spend a lot of time trying to close the distance while the enemy shoots at you. Add to that the fact they turn faster. A USN BB that wiggles a little bit and takes advantage of the armor can get to the battle relatively unscathed. If it's seen that is. American ships in have shorter detection ranges making them "stealthy". Now combine that with the signature U.S. AA suite. Say what you want, but these ships are well protected. Now onto firepower. Their guns have a flatter trajectory. What's so good about a flat trajectory? It means you have to lead your target less and your shells penetrate better at close range. American and Japanese ships generally have the same or similar reload time and max damage for AP shells (I'm not counting HE since you should default to AP for most situations in a battleship). Only the Wyoming, Colorado, and Montana do less damage per shell. The Wyoming and Montana make up for it though, having more guns than the equivalent tier IJN BB. Now something weird happens at tiers VIII, IX, and X. Suddenly, American range drastically increases, even outranging the Japanese at tiers VIII and IX. Not only that, but they're faster than all of their predecessors you've played so far. This is a radical departure from what you're used to. It's a bit overwhelming but it's not a bad thing. You now have options. Want to shoot at that guy way over there? Go for it. Want to turn around and support the other side? You can. It's still a good idea to try to close the distance some so that you can take advantage of the flat trajectory but you are no longer limited to just that. Basically, if you want something that hits hard and can take a beating then you should give this line a shot. They aren't for everyone. These ships have a somewhat aggressive playstyle requiring you to bring the fight to the enemy. It may be weird at first but a good USN BB player is a force to be reckoned with.