Status of Missouri/Alabama Citadel

[godzilla5549]

Q: Greetings Sub With Montana and Iowa confirmed to get their citadel lowered (many thanks) Will the Missouri and Alabama also receive their historical citadel? Edit: We know from the game model from the ST version of the Alabama that she has the raised citadel. I am hoping that both the ST and regular version both have their citadel lowered.

 

A: Hello! Missouri should have same pattern as Iowa, so don't worry about it. As for Alabama, she was on production test, and we don't see any reason to buff her. She is absolutely fine in her current state. Please note that citadel spacing is not the question of realism, but more of balance. If we see any real need to do it, we can alter it to improve the gameplay.

 

So Alabama will not be getting a lowered citadel, while Missouri will be.

 

Full source: https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/5xajes/world_of_warships_qa_round_x_answers_and_format/

 

Many interesting answers here.

[CapnCappy]

Yeah, Missouri needs a buff.

 

[renegadestatuz]

All the bama fans are about to start screaming bloody murder I'm just gonna sit back and eat popcorn and laugh.

[sbcptnitro]

Yeah, Missouri needs a buff.

 

Maybe not, but I'll take it!

[EmperorMaxwell]

Pretty sure Iowa has a higher citadel in comparison to NorCal.

[renegadestatuz]

Pretty sure Iowa has a higher citadel in comparison to NorCal.

 

It does, but it's getting lowered along with Montana. Bama on the other hand, has a higher citadel than North Carolina.

[Madwolf05]

Armor being incorrect is about the dumbest thing in this game. Game balance is just an excuse for bad modeling on this one. I just don't believe that is a valid excuse to poorly model something right out of the gate. You model the armor correctly, then adjust as necessary, not the other way around.

[scruffycavetroll]

\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/

[YamatoA150]

Well, I'm glad they're buffing Missouri; it makes her even more worthwhile.

 

Though I wonder exactly how low they're buffing the citadel.  I've seen some say it's to waterline, and others say it's anywhere from 50% to 75% less of the above-water portion.

 

Now if only they can do it for Yamato too so that secondary builds can become viable on her once more (unlike Iowa/Montana though, Yamato's citadel would still have a number of sections above water).

[godzilla5549]

Armor being incorrect is about the dumbest thing in this game. Game balance is just an excuse for bad modeling on this one. I just don't believe that is a valid excuse to poorly model something right out of the gate. You model the armor correctly, then adjust as necessary, not the other way around.

 

This is not "incorrect armor."

 

This is about module placement.

[SeaRaptor]

Temper your expectations, kids.  Remember:

 

Q: 3. As you mentioned before that Iowa and Montana will get a citadel buff in 0.6.4, will Missouri get that buff as well? 

A: Yes. But let us not dive into abyss of exaggeration I said we will consider this change for 0.6.4. That is not = "will be done in 0.6.4".

[ValkyrWarframe]

Well, I can finally move up to Iowa once the citadel is lowered.

[Madwolf05]

 

This is not "incorrect armor."

 

This is about module placement.

 

I guess that's what I really mean. We shouldn't have things like Ice Cream refrigerators blowing up ships like we have on the Warspite.

[Carl]

And all of you are aware that there's no armour plates below the main armoured decks of any of these ships thick enough not to be overmatched by 15" and larger guns, so side hits on the belt below the main armoured deck but above the new citadel roof will still citadel you....

[TenguBlade]

Pretty sure Iowa has a higher citadel in comparison to NorCal.

That has more to do with the higher freeboards of the Iowa class compared to North Carolina and South Dakota than anything else.  It's worth noting that Alabama's citadel, high as it is, still sits lower in the water than Iowa's at the moment.

And all of you are aware that there's no armour plates below the main armoured decks of any of these ships thick enough not to be overmatched by 15" and larger guns, so side hits on the belt below the main armoured deck but above the new citadel roof will still citadel you....

Depends on how this is being done.  If they're lowering the citadel to just the second armored deck, then the ships are effectively immune to ranged citadels unless someone gets really lucky: the area between the second deck and the waterline isn't that big, and anything that misses it will autobounce off the armored deck.

 

If it's being done like North Carolina, where the last (i.e. splinter) deck is the roof of the citadel, then you're right.  Although it is worth noting that, at 25mm, it will have immunity to the guns of the Scharnhorst, something NC can't boast because her third deck is 19mm (to be fair, that's its historical number and making it 25 would affect more ships within her normal MM spread than Iowa).

[BlazerSparta]

No. WG has this completely backwards.

 

Missouri should absolutely not be buffed.

 

If Missouri can never be nerfed from the buffed state, it should never be buffed.

 

If they want to buff Alabama, I mean, sure. She's not released yet.

[SullyQuindarius]

No. WG has this completely backwards.

 

Missouri should absolutely not be buffed.

 

If Missouri can never be nerfed from the buffed state, it should never be buffed.

 

If they want to buff Alabama, I mean, sure. She's not released yet.

I mean, Iowa and Mo are still gonna be squishy from the side. It'll be able to tank a bit better, but it's still not going to be like a German BB or anything. 

 

Alabama - Sure. If I'm paying $60 for the ship alone, I wanna get my money's worth. 

[BlazerSparta]

I mean, Iowa and Mo are still gonna be squishy from the side. It'll be able to tank a bit better, but it's still not going to be like a German BB or anything. 

 

Alabama - Sure. If I'm paying $60 for the ship alone, I wanna get my money's worth. 

 

You're missing the point.

 

If you buff Iowa, and it ends up being OP in a later patch/meta, you can nerf it back down.

 

If you buff Missouri, and it ends up OP in a later patch/meta, you can't nerf it back down.

 

What can not be nerfed should never be buffed.

[renegadestatuz]

 

You're missing the point.

 

If you buff Iowa, and it ends up being OP in a later patch/meta, you can nerf it back down.

 

If you buff Missouri, and it ends up OP in a later patch/meta, you can't nerf it back down.

 

What can not be nerfed should never be buffed.

 

For once I'm gonna have to side with issm on this one.

[TenguBlade]

You're missing the point.

 

If you buff Iowa, and it ends up being OP in a later patch/meta, you can nerf it back down.

 

If you buff Missouri, and it ends up OP in a later patch/meta, you can't nerf it back down.

 

What can not be nerfed should never be buffed.

You have a point, issm, but this is only so long as WG doesn't nerf premiums directly.  I should point out that multiple "policies" of theirs have been breached; and just because they may make an exception for the Missouri or any other future ship does not mean they won't try to avoid touching premiums in the future.

[YamatoA150]

The Q&A did mention that while they don't directly nerf Premiums, not all Premiums are immune to blanket nerfs (notably; the blanket adjustments to Firestarting chance and innate IJN Firestarting rates affecting IJN ships as a whole).

[BlazerSparta]

The Q&A did mention that while they don't directly nerf Premiums, not all Premiums are immune to blanket nerfs (notably; the blanket adjustments to Firestarting chance and innate IJN Firestarting rates affecting IJN ships as a whole).

 

They aren't consistent with that though.

 

Gremy was immune to the blanket nerf to VMF DD gun bloom.

 

Unless they have a consistent policy, I'm against buffs to any and all premium ships, no matter how much they under perform.

[renegadestatuz]

 

They aren't consistent with that though.

 

Gremy was immune to the blanket nerf to VMF DD gun bloom.

 

Unless they have a consistent policy, I'm against buffs to any and all premium ships, no matter how much they under perform.

 

Octavian also said in the Q&A that systematic changes to the mechanics "blanket nerfs"(stealth firing from open) SHOULD affect premium ships as well because the devs feel it leaves an unfair advantage and contradicts the free-to-play model. That statement right there is their response and opens the door to needing premiums through blanket nerfs. Meaning that when it happens premiums will be getting hit with the nerf bat as well. So for all that have premium ships that can stealth fire from open, get prepared because your premium ships will be changing and getting hit with the nerf bat as well. So when it happens, sorry if you feel like you're getting gipped for the money you spent(for the record I have premiums that will be affected by the blanket nerfs to stealth fire as well).

[HazeGrayUnderway]

We'll see.  The higher citadel on 'Bama is a concern but it may still turn out alright.  Mutsu has some significant reservations on her.  Concerns about her bigger citadel than Fuso and her poor armor to go along with that are justified.  Dunkeke has significant weaknesses also, i.e. being flimsy at the sides and having paint patterns, with or without camo, that point to where you should shoot at her.  Yet both Dunkeke and Mutsu are competitive with Arizona, the traditional top performer for Tier VI BBs since her introduction.

 

So we'll see.

[BlazerSparta]

Octavian also said in the Q&A that systematic changes to the mechanics "blanket nerfs"(stealth firing from open) SHOULD affect premium ships as well because the devs feel it leaves an unfair advantage and contradicts the free-to-play model. That statement right there is their response and opens the door to needing premiums through blanket nerfs. Meaning that when it happens premiums will be getting hit with the nerf bat as well. So for all that have premium ships that can stealth fire from open, get prepared because your premium ships will be changing and getting hit with the nerf bat as well. So when it happens, sorry if you feel like you're getting gipped for the money you spent(for the record I have premiums that will be affected by the blanket nerfs to stealth fire as well).

 

Like how Kamikaze and Fujin got the torp nerfs that Minekaze got?

 

Or is a blanket nerf to IJN torps not blanket enough to cover those prem DDs?

 

I'll believe it when it happens.

 

Until WG shows that it can effectively balance overperforming premiums, by buffs or by nerfs, I'm completely against any and all buffs to premium ships.