USN_BB_Iowa

Iowa

  • You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.

53 posts in this topic

 

Fair enough. But in the hands of a good player, no ship is likely to take citadels anyways. (I tried very hard to not say "get good" in my posts, but i guess that's what I ended up saying.......no offence intended to anyone.)

Also, it's not reasonable to say "my BB is too fragile because it can be deleted with citadels and German BBs cannot" when the majority of BBs and all CL/CAs can be deleted by citadel hits. It's more accurate to say "German BBs have very good survivability because they cannot be citadeled at close range". Now, it can be questioned whether German BBs are balanced in terms of their armour. But a ship's tendency to take major damage when going broadside is the norm, and cannot be used as a basis for concluding that it is underpowered. 

CLs are likely to be citadeled even while driven by good players. German BBs I feel are okay with their armor, but their secondaries... well, that is something else. But well, I think US BBs should be buffed, and slightly nerf KMS BBs (except for Konig. That thing is... god. NERF THE F*CK OUT OF IT). Or nerf both KMS and Japanese BBs. 

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CLs are likely to be citadeled even while driven by good players. German BBs I feel are okay with their armor, but their secondaries... well, that is something else. But well, I think US BBs should be buffed, and slightly nerf KMS BBs (except for Konig. That thing is... god. NERF THE F*CK OUT OF IT). Or nerf both KMS and Japanese BBs. 

 

 

Yeah, I agree that the balance with BBs is.......less than optimal. But my opinion is that the citadel isn't the reason why Iowa or Montana aren't doing well, seeing that a large and easy to hit citadel seems to be the norm rather than an oddity at high tiers.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yeah, I agree that the balance with BBs is.......less than optimal. But my opinion is that the citadel isn't the reason why Iowa or Montana aren't doing well, seeing that a large and easy to hit citadel seems to be the norm rather than an oddity at high tiers.

 

Cite the rest of the BBs then. That isn't exactly "the norm". 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Cite the rest of the BBs then. That isn't exactly "the norm". 

 

Izumo and Yamato's citadels are just as big as the Iowa and Montana. High tier cruiser citadels are very large, and they are much more fragile. Iowa and Montana don't have an especially vulnerable citadels, and German BBs are the exception to being vulnerable to citadel hits. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Izumo and Yamato's citadels are just as big as the Iowa and Montana. High tier cruiser citadels are very large, and they are much more fragile. Iowa and Montana don't have an especially vulnerable citadels, and German BBs are the exception to being vulnerable to citadel hits. 

But Montana and Iowa have less armor than Izumo and Yamato. A lot less. And smaller guns.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Montana and Iowa have less armor than Izumo and Yamato. A lot less. And smaller guns.

 

Don't bring the guns into this, because it has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the armour. Besides, Montana has 12 guns, which is useful for hitting destroyers and cruisers.

Anyways:

Yamato citadel: 410mm

Montana citadel: 409mm

Izumo citadel: 356mm

Iowa citadel: 307mm

Pretty much no difference between Yamato and Montana,  so we can infer that the citadel is not why USN BBs are underperforming. Iowa's citadel armour is noticeably thinner than the Izumo's, but both will bounce shells easily when angled and will take citadel hits when broadside. While playing against Izumo and Iowa, I found it just as hard to citadel the Iowa as the Izumo, because they were either angled, or they were not. And when they weren't, they took similar damage. 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Don't bring the guns into this, because it has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the armour. Besides, Montana has 12 guns, which is useful for hitting destroyers and cruisers.

Anyways:

Yamato citadel: 410mm

Montana citadel: 409mm

Izumo citadel: 356mm

Iowa citadel: 307mm

Pretty much no difference between Yamato and Montana,  so we can infer that the citadel is not why USN BBs are underperforming. Iowa's citadel armour is noticeably thinner than the Izumo's, but both will bounce shells easily when angled and will take citadel hits when broadside. While playing against Izumo and Iowa, I found it just as hard to citadel the Iowa as the Izumo, because they were either angled, or they were not. And when they weren't, they took similar damage. 

You are but looking at the citadel armor. Belt armor? Bow armor? And it does not take into effect where the citadel is:citadel armor is not citadel position. And what gun are you using for the tests? The Yamato?


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are but looking at the citadel armor. Belt armor? Bow armor? And it does not take into effect where the citadel is:citadel armor is not citadel position. And what gun are you using for the tests? The Yamato?

 

Look, the argument was that USN take citadel hits more often than any other battleship. In the case of Montana and Yamato, that's obviously false, because the citadel size and armour thickness is similar. For Iowa and Izumo it may be slightly harder to citadel the Izumo, but both will always take citadel damage if broadside. 

And no, I was not using the Yamato. I was basing my post off of my experience battling the T9 BBs in my Gneisenau. 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Look, the argument was that USN take citadel hits more often than any other battleship. In the case of Montana and Yamato, that's obviously false, because the citadel size and armour thickness is similar. For Iowa and Izumo it may be slightly harder to citadel the Izumo, but both will always take citadel damage if broadside. 

And no, I was not using the Yamato. I was basing my post off of my experience battling the T9 BBs in my Gneisenau. 

You are using citadel armour, however, and not including belt armour. Size of guns is another thing that will be tucked away. I advise taking it to a training room and using a ship that is more accurate than Gniesenau.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I can see wy Iowa has its nerfs 16 km secondary's that are ACCURATE that's understandable. but the raised cit... wy the hell. She was able to do faster turns than in world of warships and they turn her into a find a place bb and move backwards sournote I agree with you war gaming has  screwed iowa up and it needs to be fixed she should be able to charge if needed give proper cover to other bbs and not get cited her armor was meant as well to block 18 inchers at range well ive seen way to many Iowa's get half healthed by yamato at 20 km away, Iowa's armor cant block all 18 inch shells but I just don't understand wy WG makes turtleback armor and then doesn't lower Iowa and Monty cit, its not pleasing


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are using citadel armour, however, and not including belt armour. Size of guns is another thing that will be tucked away. I advise taking it to a training room and using a ship that is more accurate than Gniesenau.

 

I'm not sure why the belt armour has anything to do with this. Lower belt armour is included with the side citadel plating, and the upper belt armour has nothing to do with taking citadels unless at very long range. Larger guns has nothing to do with being less likely to be citadeled. An accurate ship would see even less difference than the Gneisenau because all their shells are going to be landing in the place the players want them to go, instead of landing everywhere like with the Gneisenau. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But a ship's tendency to take major damage when going broadside is the norm, and cannot be used as a basis for concluding that it is underpowered. 

 

actually that is entire plausible when compared to ships same tier with similar stats, the expectation being that this ship in particular has an exposed, ABOVE THE WATERLINE citadel, that you seem to brush off as, "oh yeah no big deal" while making excuses for ships that A. do not have this hindrance and B. have stronger armor to boot.  so yes that is why it IS underpowered. because any advantages it may take from "better" players is mitigated by that better player doing EVEN BETTER in a better ship. no matter how MLG good you want us to get you CANNOT deny our performance will be hindered by the shortcomings of the ship we play.

 

and to pre-empt yes we CAN adapt to play style changes to improve but will never be on par with a similar skill player on a fundamentally better ship regardless of how "git gud" your attitude is. regardles of player skill, the ships are not equally balanced. period.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

actually that is entire plausible when compared to ships same tier with similar stats, the expectation being that this ship in particular has an exposed, ABOVE THE WATERLINE citadel, that you seem to brush off as, "oh yeah no big deal" while making excuses for ships that A. do not have this hindrance and B. have stronger armor to boot.  so yes that is why it IS underpowered. because any advantages it may take from "better" players is mitigated by that better player doing EVEN BETTER in a better ship. no matter how MLG good you want us to get you CANNOT deny our performance will be hindered by the shortcomings of the ship we play.

 

and to pre-empt yes we CAN adapt to play style changes to improve but will never be on par with a similar skill player on a fundamentally better ship regardless of how "git gud" your attitude is. regardles of player skill, the ships are not equally balanced. period.

Exposed, above the waterline citadel? All high tier cruisers and 5/9 high tier BBs have that. Stop acting like the Iowa is the only one with a large citadel. Weaker armour? Yes, but a weak and exposed citadel doesn't stop the Amagi from being considered just as good as the NC, even though it has a large citadel with only 254 mm of armour. 

 

So basically the only accurate thing you have said to back your argument that Iowa is underpowered is that its citadel armour is thinner. But obviously, the thickness of the citadel armour is not the only thing to consider for balance, so you'll need to better than that if you want to convince anyone that the citadel is the only reason why the Iowa is worse than the Izumo. 

Edited by Aduial

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

actually that is entire plausible when compared to ships same tier with similar stats, the expectation being that this ship in particular has an exposed, ABOVE THE WATERLINE citadel, that you seem to brush off as, "oh yeah no big deal" while making excuses for ships that A. do not have this hindrance and B. have stronger armor to boot.  so yes that is why it IS underpowered. because any advantages it may take from "better" players is mitigated by that better player doing EVEN BETTER in a better ship. no matter how MLG good you want us to get you CANNOT deny our performance will be hindered by the shortcomings of the ship we play.

 

and to pre-empt yes we CAN adapt to play style changes to improve but will never be on par with a similar skill player on a fundamentally better ship regardless of how "git gud" your attitude is. regardles of player skill, the ships are not equally balanced. period.

 

 

Exposed, above the waterline citadel? All high tier cruisers and 5/9 high tier BBs have that. Stop acting like the Iowa is the only one with a large citadel. Weaker armour? Yes, but a weak and exposed citadel doesn't stop the Amagi from being considered just as good as the NC, even though it has a large citadel with only 254 mm of armour. 

 

 

 

So basically the only accurate thing you have said to back your argument that Iowa is underpowered is that its citadel armour is thinner. But obviously, the thickness of the citadel armour is not the only thing to consider for balance, so you'll need to better than that if you want to convince anyone that the citadel is the only reason why the Iowa is worse than the Izumo. 

 

Here's the thing, the citadels have been proven to be factually incorrect, and put in merely "for balance." It's a nerf that wasn't realistic or even deserved, but it was done anyway before the ship could even prove to be overpowered or not. Iowa and Montana should not even have to worry about above the water citadels to begin with. Especialy in a world of ships with super armor and sloped citadel decks.

 

The Iowa gets to be less accurate, less armored, and doesn't even get its real protection when compared to several other ships that do. It's hard to call that properly balanced. I think that's what people are trying to tell WG, but they're convinced that the ships is "fine."

 

As for the Amagi comments, it's citadel is actually surprisingly trollish and can do things it is not expected to do. Also its citadel IS below the waterline and is sloped to boot, so I wouldn't exactly call it "exposed." One might even say it's actually better than the NC's. If you take a look in armor viewer, it actually has something resembling a turtle back scheme going for it. If you add the belt armor with the sloped sides it's about the same overall thickness as the NC's as well. The Izumo's layout utilizes the same concepts as well.

 

Let's not even get into tiers 3-7... With the exception of New Mexico and Arizona, the US line was sort of just replaced by the German one.

 

I have hope that with new BB lines the US line will eventually come up again on the table for re-balancing. When that time comes maybe we'll see something change. in the mean time, I say play whatever ship you choose to and work with it the best you can. There's always hope.

 

This isn't about getting mad and starting arguments. We all want the same thing. A fair chance to play the ships we love without feeling like they're at a massive disadvantage from the gate. Most would struggle to say this is so for the US BB line. (And the cruiser line, and the carrier line... But at least not the destroyer line.) We all want balance and fun. Can't we at least agree on that?

 

Alright, I'll climb down from the soapbox now.

Edited by Lynolius

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the complaint isn't that i dont like her, i LOVE Iowa, and i work her as i must.  i do better in her than NC, (albeit never as well as i felt i did in NM) i can work this, im just commenting that it feels Flawed.

will i stop using her ? No.          Merica!

will i curse WG with my dying breath? No. i will rock the Iowa as my flagship until i die.

but my opinion is that it suffers fundamental built in flaws that hinder her.

is that the end? no, Adapt and overcome. she is American, she will come out on top despite any deck stacked against her.

just makes every victory that much more earned.

Edited by SourNote666

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too love it to death. Iowa was my first tier 9 and I have a model of her on my shelf. All I can say is play it to your best ability. Ultimately, it'll probably make you a better player in the end. That's what keeps me going.

Edited by Lynolius

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

+1

but i can deal with a slow turn, im a battleship, i can drive it fine, but i dont feel like a battleship when a t7-t8 ship can easily citadel me for 3/4 of my health in one salvo.

 

You mean T6?  Yeah....

 

Yeah, but the 15-19s it takes feels excessive, meanwhile the CAs and DDs get like 3-4s rudder shift times.....

 

The disparity seems a little much.  I could believe 8-12s. 

Edited by KnightFandragon

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to make it clear that I am not arguing that Iowa is balanced. All I'm saying is that the citadel is not the reason for it. It's more about the fact that she has no role that she can perform better than the IJN and KM BBs, because CVs are very rare. 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I'm saying is that the citadel is not the reason for it. It's more about the fact that she has no role that she can perform better than the IJN and KM BBs, because CVs are very rare. 

 

i can see that, i guess.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but the 15-19s it takes feels excessive, meanwhile the CAs and DDs get like 3-4s rudder shift times.....

 

 

 

The disparity seems a little much.  I could believe 8-12s. 

 

well that is because ships with that much mass do take a lot of effort to change course drastically. whereas the DDG i served on could make a course change, or make a hard turn @ 30+ knots no problem ( well unless you count anything not secured for sea flying across the office a problem lol) so i see why those times are as low as they are for DD's/ CA's/CL's.

 

admittedly 19s is overkill, you're right.

especially since as stated before "Realism" is not WG's first priority.

Edited by SourNote666

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should make one of the April Fools, just be Iowa with gulf war setup (So CIWS and anti-air rockets and cruise missile mounts for aesthetic purposes (all non-usable and does not affect gameplay what so ever.))


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anyone notice Iowa got a shell velocity increase this patch (or last) 10/10 amazing. HE is finally in the 800's with AP about 740-760 (correct me if im wrong) makes A WORLD of difference in hitting ships.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stock nc is mehhhhhh i still got ez 70kdmg while stock 

Fully modded NC i was getting games of 70kdmg-130kdmg i found that NC is better at brawling that it was with sniping

 

Iowa stock...... WTH this ship is insane on how useless it is to me A: dispersion im pretty sure the south carolinas dispersion is better....

B: i hate the AP SHELLS every ap shell i shoot against fully broadside ships just bounce.........

C: its a punching bag.... a massive punching bag A sims firing ap at me was doing like 1-2k dmg per salvo like really?

D:if u dont have silver dont buy this ship... the repair jessssss 120k repair and then if u dont have flags or premium and you lose and get sunk you will lose 60-80k in silver per game

E: i get more dmg in my tier 4 langley........  avg dmg in iowa? 20kdmg


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had the stock Iowa, was awful and experience needed to upgrade seemed punitive, so sold - was able to save free exp and now have the Missouri - no reason to get Iowa - no desire to get Montana, have Kurfurst and grinding IJN BB line (almost done with Nagato) so Yami latter.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stock Iowa is not super fun, but upgraded Iowa is an excellent ship. The premium camouflage is also very helpful in reducing research time for the upgrades and taking away some of the high costs of operating the ship. Then again, with Iowa, until they fix the citadel issue, face-tank all the way and hope you have good support to spot DDs who will be coming for you.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.