Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
godzilla5549

Poll Regarding Iowa's Armor

Iowa  

92 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Iowa be given the same armor scheme as Missouri ENTIRELY?

  2. 2. Should Iowa's frontal bulkhead be buffed to the same level as Missouri (i.e. ~343mm frontal bulkhead)?

  3. 3. Should Iowa's torpedo bulges (i.e. the side plating) be the same as Missouri's (i.e. 38mm)?


37 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

970
[CRAYN]
Beta Testers
2,085 posts
4,674 battles

I would like to know what people's thoughts are on Iowa regarding the armor of the frontal bulkhead. Missouri has the increased frontal armor, which allows her to heavily angle against a Yamato and not take massive citadel damage, whereas with Iowa you can and will be frontally deleted if a Yamato get lucky with RNG and aims for the right spot.

 

For myself, I would fully support Iowa getting the same armor scheme as Missouri with the citadel remaining as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
256
[WG-CC]
[WG-CC]
Wiki Editor, Members
855 posts
9,538 battles

Id like to see the citadels lowered on both ships, if anything.

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,879
[-K--]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,172 posts
10,844 battles

No to all.

 

I don't see why premium and tech tree ships have to be exactly the same. In fact, that's exactly what pissed off a lot of people about the Prinz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
970
[CRAYN]
Beta Testers
2,085 posts
4,674 battles

Id like to see the citadels lowered on both ships, if anything.

 

The citadel will not be lowered. WG has explicitly stated that.

 

This armor change is both historical if we assume that our C hull Iowa is USS Wisconsin and it would be in the place of the citadel being lowered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[VIRUS]
Alpha Tester
147 posts
1,853 battles

Just lower the Citadels on both and the Montana, but no WG considers them "balanced" because "reasons." I'm OK with the Missouri having a little more armor since her and Wisconsin did have more and Illinois and Kentucky after them were planned to have more as well. I just assume the Iowa C hull is a late war Iowa or New Jersey and not Missouri or Wisconsin.

Share this post


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

No, no, and yes.

 

Iowa (even though technically our Iowa is actually the Wisconsin) and New Jersey never had that same level of protection as the later two sisters, Missouri and Wisconsin. That, alongside the radar and lack of aircraft, is what makes her unique compared to Iowa.

 

However the side bulges should definitely, definitely be the same.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,709 posts
17,651 battles

If the Iowa got remodeled to be an exact copy of the MO, I would be somewhat upset that spend 750k FXP for the MO when I could have used it for other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
970
[CRAYN]
Beta Testers
2,085 posts
4,674 battles

If the Iowa got remodeled to be an exact copy of the MO, I would be somewhat upset that spend 750k FXP for the MO when I could have used it for other things.

 

Missouri still has the obscene credit printing ability as well as the Tier IX Radar.
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33
[VX9]
[VX9]
Beta Testers
420 posts
16,201 battles

On another note. If they were the same, people wouldn't shell out the cash for it. Since I already have the MO, Leave it like it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17,298
[WOLF5]
[WOLF5]
Members
38,164 posts
30,915 battles

I put no on every vote.  For the simple reasons of:

 

1.  I love citadelling the s--t out of Iowas and Missouris.

 

2.  Buffing Iowa to Missouri standards isn't going to help it.  The same glaring issues, weaknesses exist as before.  She has nonexistent armor and the hilarious results of bagging citadels on either will still exist.  They'll eat torpedoes huge with the immensely long hull and laughable handling of the ship.

 

Bow on and all that jazz is fine, but eventually Iowa / Missouri is going to have to turn unless it wants to die a slow death by staying angled or bow-on and getting slammed by HE focus fire.  Once it decides to turn to avoid that fate, that's when that a--hole(s) somewhere was waiting for with their AP at the ready.  That's when you bag the hilarious 3+ Citadel hits and obliterate them instantaneously as if you just hit a Pensacola with AP.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,003 posts
1,451 battles

I put no on every vote.  For the simple reasons of:

 

1.  I love citadelling the s--t out of Iowas and Missouris.

 

2.  Buffing Iowa to Missouri standards isn't going to help it.  The same glaring issues, weaknesses exist as before.  She has nonexistent armor and the hilarious results of bagging citadels on either will still exist.  They'll eat torpedoes huge with the immensely long hull and laughable handling of the ship.

 

Bow on and all that jazz is fine, but eventually Iowa / Missouri is going to have to turn unless it wants to die a slow death by staying angled or bow-on and getting slammed by HE focus fire.  Once it decides to turn to avoid that fate, that's when that a--hole(s) somewhere was waiting for with their AP at the ready.  That's when you bag the hilarious 3+ Citadel hits and obliterate them instantaneously as if you just hit a Pensacola with AP.

 

Yeah, but the ships are just fine, and not in any need of a buff......

 

Iowas and MOntanas, just people's WOWS equivalent of a 'sex toy", getting off watching the citadels rack up....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
970
[CRAYN]
Beta Testers
2,085 posts
4,674 battles

> Suggest buffs to a USN ship

 

> Gets told that the buff wouldn't matter or it would encroach on a USN premium

 

Why do I even try to reason with you people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,258
[WIB]
Alpha Tester
3,978 posts
2,472 battles

Just FYI.  The Missouri might seem better but it only seems that way.  In 32 matches I have been entirely deleted in one salvo from near full health in my Missiouri and it isn't uncommon to take 40k+ damage any time you try to turn and show any broadside.  Also that frontal bulkhead does nothing to stop a Yamato from punching through with impunity.

 

So changing the bulkhead isn't going to change much when what is needed is the citadel to be lowered to where it is supposed to be.

 

 

Missouri still has the obscene credit printing ability as well as the Tier IX Radar.

 

After 32 matches in my Missiouri, I disagree about the obscene credit printing ability at least for your average skill level player.   Sure if you can pull 120k damage and get 2-3 kills a match, it does print those credits but so does those same numbers in a Tirpitz and the Tirpitz is easier to play. Also you average player isn't going to be pulling those numbers every match.   From my experience with the Missouri over 32 matches, I am averaging about 300-350k per match with a premium account before servicing.  That is a match with 70-80k damage and maybe 1 kill.  It is also the hardest ship I have every played due to that raised citadel and the obscene amounts of damage you will take if you try to actually maneuver at all.  Show broadside to the enemy at all and you will put yourself out of the fight in short order. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17,298
[WOLF5]
[WOLF5]
Members
38,164 posts
30,915 battles

> Suggest buffs to a USN ship

 

> Gets told that the buff wouldn't matter or it would encroach on a USN premium

 

Why do I even try to reason with you people.

 

It really doesn't matter.  Missouri is just as prone to getting blasted out of the water like Iowa, as if we were shooting at a Pensacola.  Buffing it to Missouri standards is meaningless.  At high tier, everyone lives off of Iowas and Missouris to do things like this:

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/110603-psa-iowas-missouris-please-protect-the-sides-of-your-ship/

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
328
[SWOB]
[SWOB]
Alpha Tester
1,147 posts
6,651 battles

I don't really want to see changes to ships from their real values unless there is a good reason or it's part of a general across the board rebalancing.  The Missouri is a bit OP, but it doesn't bother me that much.  Even for people who want to spend the dubloons to convert free XP they still need to grind out about the same amount of XP that it would take to earn a tier 9 ship and for the folks who do it the old fashioned way the benefits are reasonable considering the effort.

 

The Missouri is a bit OP compared to the Iowa, but it's not as though it makes a player who is a complete muppet invulnerable.  You just need to keep an eye on them and flank them.  The current meta encouraging people to play by parking with their bows facing the enemy and not to take advantage of the exceptional speed of this ship is not something I want to see reinforced on the Iowa.  If WG is to buff the Iowa, I'd prefer that they do so using a different mechanic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17,298
[WOLF5]
[WOLF5]
Members
38,164 posts
30,915 battles

I don't really want to see changes to ships from their real values unless there is a good reason or it's part of a general across the board rebalancing.  The Missouri is a bit OP, but it doesn't bother me that much.  Even for people who want to spend the dubloons to convert free XP they still need to grind out about the same amount of XP that it would take to earn a tier 9 ship and for the folks who do it the old fashioned way the benefits are reasonable considering the effort.

 

The Missouri is a bit OP compared to the Iowa, but it's not as though it makes a player who is a complete muppet invulnerable.  You just need to keep an eye on them and flank them.  The current meta encouraging people to play by parking with their bows facing the enemy and not to take advantage of the exceptional speed of this ship is not something I want to see reinforced on the Iowa.  If WG is to buff the Iowa, I'd prefer that they do so using a different mechanic.

 

Missouri isn't OP.  It's really just another Iowa that makes money better.  It has essentially the same strengths and ultra-glaring weaknesses as Iowa.  Just very minor tweaks.  I have no fear of Iowa, Missouri.  One mistake by them and they are as good as dead as a focus-fired Pensacola.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17,298
[WOLF5]
[WOLF5]
Members
38,164 posts
30,915 battles

reason I got Missouri is because its different from an Iowa. why on earth would you want EXACTLY the same ship? -_- if youre doing that the free XP put into this ship was for nothing.

 

Other than Radar, it is essentially the same ship.  And the exact same glaring weaknesses to get WTH-OMG-I-JUST-GOTLOLPENCIT-BY-EVERYONE-IN-MY-MILE-HIGH-CITADEL!
Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
249 posts
16,381 battles

 

Other than Radar, it is essentially the same ship.  And the exact same glaring weaknesses to get WTH-OMG-I-JUST-GOTLOLPENCIT-BY-EVERYONE-IN-MY-MILE-HIGH-CITADEL!

 

Having Missouri and Yamato She will bounce Yamato shells compared to an Iowa, ive both recieved and bounced from yamato aswell as bounced on a missouri while using Yamato. One salvo I saw even had 3 shells shatter and 2 bounce. from under 8km. and he was almost broadside. I want my Missouri to be better than Iowa. it deserves it for what WG asks for it, aswell Iowa has better AA at I think long range? but none-the-less.. no Iowa needs to stay where it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,662
[CALM]
Beta Testers
6,838 posts
6,088 battles

1.  No

2.  No

3.  No*

 

However, I will support an option where Iowa's and Missouri's above water portion of their citadels are lowered by at least 50%, if not 75%.  That alone will provide more survivability while leaving a bit of a weakspot that WG wants them to have.

 

*Or better still, lower Missouri's completely to waterline or at least by 75%, but lower Iowa's by 50%, but also buff the bulge to match Missouri's.  Can't ask for Iowa to be lowered completely since that would come with a nerf somewhere else; likely her accuracy that she was given, whereas Missouri as a Premium is unlikely to get nerfed (at least directly; short of regular powercreep).  Moreso considering the cost some have spent on her so soon after her release**.

 

**For the record; I only had to spend 30 USD to finish conversion; as I already had Doubloon reserves from earlier Bundles and a fair bit of FXP I was originally planning to spend on getting to Moskva.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17,298
[WOLF5]
[WOLF5]
Members
38,164 posts
30,915 battles

 

Having Missouri and Yamato She will bounce Yamato shells compared to an Iowa, ive both recieved and bounced from yamato aswell as bounced on a missouri while using Yamato. One salvo I saw even had 3 shells shatter and 2 bounce. from under 8km. and he was almost broadside. I want my Missouri to be better than Iowa. it deserves it for what WG asks for it, aswell Iowa has better AA at I think long range? but none-the-less.. no Iowa needs to stay where it is.

 

It doesn't matter.  She is still stuck to the same tactical limitations as Iowa.  The moment someone sees a hint of the sides, which can easily happen, both Iowa and Missouri behave the exact same way:  They get popped like a zit.

 

Unfortunately for Bow-On / Angle-only Iowa and Missouri, this isn't a 1-on-1 match.  There's lots of other players out there and someone, somewhere is going to catch a glimpse of the sides and say, "Hi!" with their AP.  You can go bow-on or angle only so much, eventually you're going to have to turn when the situation turns sour, and pay out the a$$ you will.  If they don't turn, then they suffer the slow and just-as-dead fate as any ship stuck and forced to stay bow on, angled.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,080
[NGA-A]
Members
2,654 posts
17,781 battles

The sad thing about the Iowas is that they actually had really formidable armor. They scared the piss out of the Russians because Ivan didn't have a missile heavy enough to sink them until late in the Cold War. There's a reason that we were able to keep using those tough bastards even in the Gulf War. And suddenly the refusal to improve them makes so much sense. But, we've always known that Wargaming is rather petty.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
288
[NO2BB]
[NO2BB]
Beta Testers
541 posts
11,983 battles

Maybe well performing BB should wait until more deserving ships get a buff first. Although I do not like Missouri being p2w.

Edited by Snoozing_Mako

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×