Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Drakedge

Where's the USN Love?

80 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Testers
499 posts
4,495 battles

Seriously, why is it that the USN paper ship, the montanna is the biggest turd in the bowl. While the russian paper ships, pick any of them, out perform every ship of their tier. 

 

Why did they get rid of the high penetration of the USN 16s and their high muzzle velocities? It's nye completely pointless to take that floating citadel to sea. Let's not forget to mention that a yamato can break 9 hits to hits broadside from the montanna. Taking a whopping 3k damage, while you sneeze back and cause 10k

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
520
[-FBS-]
Members
2,646 posts
4,290 battles

USN 16" have their historic penetration and muzzle velocity... They just get shafted by overmatch mechanics.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,478
[HINON]
Members
7,656 posts
9,539 battles

USN 16" have their historic penetration and muzzle velocity... They just get shafted by overmatch mechanics.  

 

^ sums it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
425
[-ARM-]
Beta Testers
1,033 posts
14,309 battles

Because USN had so many real designs, that the USN is severely limited by reality, while other navies(Russia) that had few real ships get to dabble in paper designs that have specifications that sometimes exceed what they would have been capable of were they actually built.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
499 posts
4,495 battles

USN 16" have their historic penetration and muzzle velocity... They just get shafted by overmatch mechanics.  

 

It didn't use to be that way, it used to be that the usn 16s were very very good at penetrating armor and now it's laughable. Then they reduced the nerf to the bow on mechanic and further borked the line.  The original nerf to bow on made that crap obsolete, as it should be. 
Edited by Drakedge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,180 posts
7,853 battles

Because this game is developed by Russians. If you want the USN to have all the love you could develop your own naval combat game. Right now there are zero companies working on this kind of game in the US. So we have to deal with a game where the primary market is Russia. The same thing happened with World of Tanks. The Soviet tanks got all the love first and were generally considered superior to the US tanks (in most cases). I've just learned to live with it.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
376
[S_E_A]
Beta Testers
2,709 posts
4,563 battles

If you check the data mined penrtration tables by fnord_disc you'll see the the penrtration is fairly close to USN empirical calculations for their own guns. Again, it s the overmatch mechanic that makes it seem to pen less.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
499 posts
4,495 battles

You should still never break 9 shells on the 90* broadside of a yammy. That's ridiculous, meanwhile they penetrate and citadel you with your bow decently angled, like 45* bow on to it, and bounce nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,728
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,538 posts
12,810 battles

Prison love son, prison love.  They have lots of prison love for the USN.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,889
[HINON]
Members
7,797 posts
2,144 battles

American guns?

High muzzle velocites?

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
110
Beta Testers
514 posts
5,264 battles

Because much like in WoT the things that make certain designs good aren't factors in the game, while paper designs aren't hamstrung by shortcoming like poor mechanical reliability or low fuel capacity or poor sea-keeping or low barrel life yet still enjoying the benefits of idealized weapon performance or speed (or both).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,043
[SALTY]
Members
8,930 posts
18,131 battles

While the russian paper ships, pick any of them, out perform every ship of their tier. 

 

Krasnyi Krym tends to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
136 posts
3,491 battles

Seriously, why is it that the USN paper ship, the montanna is the biggest turd in the bowl. While the russian paper ships, pick any of them, out perform every ship of their tier. 

 

Technically, the Montana isn't a paper ship class as they were actually being built but were canceled, but I get what you're saying. The USN does seem to get the short end of the stick more often than not.
Edited by Lynolius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,287
[WG-CC]
-Members-, Members
9,101 posts
8,050 battles

Most of the German, Japanese and American ships are WW2 ships that were planned as such. Russian Cruisers from T5 on going are post war and thereby follow a different doctrine. I wouldn't say that VMF CAs are OP, they can be dealt with with ease if you approach them correctly. Mogami vs. Dimitri Donskoi? Mogami killed the Donskoi. True story

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
440
[BLKHS]
Beta Testers
1,612 posts
8,174 battles

The OP is right on target.  And even worse are the US CVs.   How can it be coincidence that every single US CV tier VI and above is far, far below average in WR and near or at the bottom of it's tier.   I do admit that sometimes I have a stray thought that political influence is occurring with WG.   [cue the Tin Foil Hat Association them song].  You look at Steven Seagal hugging up with Putin, and then all of a sudden Seagal is highlighted in this game - which is pretty odd when he's barely marketable on low end TV shows in the rest of the world.  Then you look at US cruisers, US CVs and the Montana as the OP mentions, and they are all weak - is this a once in a lifetime coincidence or is it calculated....every now and them I do wonder...

Edited by 11thACRColdsteel
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
806 posts
5,710 battles

US ships will find themselves at a natural disadvantage in this game, just simply because they were never envisioned to perform in an environment such as this.  

 

We're confined to an unnaturally small, unnaturally designed environment that's designed to encourage combat.  This is done for very good reason and is why the game is as successful as it is so far.

 

The Bureau of Ordnance made very deliberate decisions to limit muzzle velocity in order to improve barrel life, allowing less pressure on logistics systems supporting two wars more than a thousand miles away.  It paid off well at the time, but in this game where barrel life and logistics don't matter, it's a disadvantage.

 

Also please don't forget that Nicholas and Phoenix are each more "paper" than Montana.  Nicholas is still competitive, and many people do well with Phoenix though she suffers as new lines have benefited from "power creep" over the last year.

 

That said, I have not played Montana and do not plan on moving any further than the Iowa which is presently sitting in my port gathering dust as I work on other lines and other commanders.  It'll be a year or more until I've accomplished other priorities that would bring me to her.

 

-R

Very caffeinated and running on three hours' sleep, so please excuse my ramblings.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,860
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,947 battles

I like the US ships and have even proposed ways to improve them, especially the carriers.

 

But apparently since I share a name with a Japanese ship I want them to all suck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
376
[S_E_A]
Beta Testers
2,709 posts
4,563 battles

You should still never break 9 shells on the 90* broadside of a yammy. That's ridiculous, meanwhile they penetrate and citadel you with your bow decently angled, like 45* bow on to it, and bounce nothing.

 

Hyperbole doesn't suit balance discussions. As one can see from the datamined numbers, broadside on, its mutually assured destruction. Neither shell should shatter under 20km. Past 15km, Yamato's shells loses pen far faster than the AP Mk. 8.

 

19BXHud.png

Edited by byronicasian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
6,075 battles

Seriously, why is it that the USN paper ship, the montanna is the biggest turd in the bowl. While the russian paper ships, pick any of them, out perform every ship of their tier. 

 

Why did they get rid of the high penetration of the USN 16s and their high muzzle velocities? It's nye completely pointless to take that floating citadel to sea. Let's not forget to mention that a yamato can break 9 hits to hits broadside from the montanna. Taking a whopping 3k damage, while you sneeze back and cause 10k

 

 

Because Montana was designed with the Iowa's main guns. The High velocity 16 inch guns you're talking about was never put on any USN ship currently in game.  However at some point the Lexington class battlecruiser and the 1920 South Dakota class super dreadnought are coming to the game and both will have said guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
672 posts
2,946 battles

It does seem like the USN gets the biggest dose of:  "It was like this for real so you're stuck with it."  Except most of those things are pure detriments in game due to the advantages not being modeled.  

 

Rainbow arcs for plunging fire that does not exist, lower barrel pressures for gun longevity (despite the fact that the guns could shoot hotter), advanced TDS systems that get tier 4 protection values solely due to thickness of the system, bad 5" secondaries because the /51 and /25 cal guns were not good (but the excellent /38 is nerfed to also suck, because reasons).

 

Then you look at things like Moskava shooting at velocities that would crack a gun barrel, or blow the breach, after 10 shots.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
6,075 battles

It does seem like the USN gets the biggest dose of:  "It was like this for real so you're stuck with it."  Except most of those things are pure detriments in game due to the advantages not being modeled.  

 

Rainbow arcs for plunging fire that does not exist, lower barrel pressures for gun longevity (despite the fact that the guns could shoot hotter), advanced TDS systems that get tier 4 protection values solely due to thickness of the system, bad 5" secondaries because the /51 and /25 cal guns were not good (but the excellent /38 is nerfed to also suck, because reasons).

 

Then you look at things like Moskava shooting at velocities that would crack a gun barrel, or blow the breach, after 10 shots.

 

Actually the 51 is an amazing gun. WG just nerfed the hell out of it.
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×