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

278 posts in this topic

I'm hoping the devs say Aladrama is fine with high citadel having learned from Iowa- Montana. I'm curious though LWM-when you say they're competitive but not optimized- I'm not sure what you mean? Do you mean for brawling or in general. From ichase's video sounds like it's "optimized" for mid range 12-15km engagements. Would this be a fair interpretation of what you meant or did you have other ideas?

Edited by ENO75

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want the MO.  I am not paying money, so I have to pay the iron price.  150k free xp earned so far, 600k to go....

 

It will be nice when I  can use my free xp to skip stock hulls again.  Saving for the MO is killing me!


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given her hilarious TDS, how viable is it to equip the acquisition module, build a captian around secondaries, with vigilance... And then go DD hunting?*

 

*Using hydro acoustic search as well

 

It's probably a terrible idea given her citadel, but it would be pretty funny at the same time...

 

Funny you say, but my best DD killer recently has been the NorCal. it's been almost comical as I can't seem to kill a DD in my cruisers anymore, but charge in with a tier 8 BB and they start dropping like flies.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good one, but can you add gameplay video or a replay to your reviews to bump up the quality? thanks


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That reads to me as though he's saying Missouri's citadel will be lowered following the same pattern as Iowa.

 

 

That is what he's saying. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hoping the devs say Aladrama is fine with high citadel having learned from Iowa- Montana. I'm curious though LWM-when you say they're competitive but not optimized- I'm not sure what you mean? Do you mean for brawling or in general. From ichase's video sounds like it's "optimized" for mid range 12-15km engagements. Would this be a fair interpretation of what you meant or did you have other ideas?

 

Competitive, not optimal.  Competitive can compete.  Optimal are the most competitive out of all of the choices available.

 

Carl described it best.  I'm paraphrasing him, but an optimal ship in World of Warships is one that's very difficult to put at any sort of disadvantage.  That just doesn't describe high tier American or Japanese battleships grace of their vulnerabilities to taking citadel hits (both), inability to dodge torpedoes (both) and their vulnerability to air strikes (Japan).  Take Bismarck by contrast:

 

  • Vulnerability to citadel hits?  Conspicuously absent.
  • Inability to dodge torpedoes?  Got that covered with hydroacoustic search.
  • Vulnerability to air strikes?  Not so much.  Stonking good AA power.

 

In fact, the only balancing measure to the optimal (German) ships against which all Battleships are now compared is their firepower through having less guns and worse accuracy.  The difference in firepower would have to be significantly worse than it presently is to unseat the German Battleships from being the current top dogs in the meta (with the sole exception being the Yamato because of her guns).  Now this all said, that doesn't preclude the Izumo, Montana, Iowa, Missouri, Alabama, North Carolina or Amagi from being good ships.  It doesn't stop players who respect their weaknesses from performing not only well, but consistently dominating in the matches they play.  None of the ships listed are broken.  They're well balanced.

 

But for those who live in a comfortable, ignorant world of false dichotomies, if something's not the best, then they're not viable.  They're also trash.


5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was interested in the Bama until I read these two items:

 

Right off the bat, she has comparable dispersion than any of the other high tier American Battleships, with a 1.9 sigma rating. Only Colorado and North Carolina, with a 2.0 value a tier lower, has less vertical dispersion. 

&

Her fragility is further compounded by a tendency to take frequent penetrating hits from AP shells, even when angled.

 

I hated the North Carolina before they buffed the sigma value and this ship sounds like stepping right back into that mess.  I also don't like how soft the Iowa is and the Bama sounds worse, if not the same.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the argument that the North Carolina is also fragile is the *degree* of fragility. NC's citadel is a tiny strip just at the waterline. Alabama's is a giant bullseye. North Carolina *can* brawl if the situation demands it. In that ship, if I show my side, I *might* take a citadel or double citadel hit. I accept that she's not a KM BB. But the problem with Iowa and Montana currently is that they don't *just* take a citadel or two. My first game in the Montana saw me eat 60k in one volley. *In one volley!*. That is not normal for a battleship as heavily armored as this one. At all. Yet it happens all the time when playing Iowa and Montana.

 

Sure, good angling will help, and I'm very grateful Alabama's rudder and turning circle help her get out of bad situations more easily. But there's always going to be situations where you have no choice but to show your side for a few moments as you turn or squeeze through islands. There's no way to avoid that at all unless you have a lot of experience and map know how to always know where to go at start and why. And even there ... there are stealthy BBs, notably other USN ships, that can maneuver around to the side without being seen and instantly delete you.

 

No other battleship ship line has this level of fragility. Even Yamato's raised citadel is tiny compared to that on the Iowa and Montana (and Alabama now), and RNG doesn't generally favor instantly deleting that ship in one volley. It's possible, but really not that likely.

 

So people seeing this ship will try and play her a bit like a North Carolina as she looks the same, has similar agility, and its a tier 8 BB. And they'll be hugely surprised when they see their new 'NC clone' die quickly just due to this single armor flaw. And it's fine and all to say that a good player can make her work, but most players are not unicums and will just end up miserable in this ship, the one and only tier 8 USN premium.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Competitive, not optimal.  Competitive can compete.  Optimal are the most competitive out of all of the choices available.

 

Carl described it best.  I'm paraphrasing him, but an optimal ship in World of Warships is one that's very difficult to put at any sort of disadvantage.  That just doesn't describe high tier American or Japanese battleships grace of their vulnerabilities to taking citadel hits (both), inability to dodge torpedoes (both) and their vulnerability to air strikes (Japan).  Take Bismarck by contrast:

 

  • Vulnerability to citadel hits?  Conspicuously absent.
  • Inability to dodge torpedoes?  Got that covered with hydroacoustic search.
  • Vulnerability to air strikes?  Not so much.  Stonking good AA power.

 

In fact, the only balancing measure to the optimal (German) ships against which all Battleships are now compared is their firepower through having less guns and worse accuracy.  The difference in firepower would have to be significantly worse than it presently is to unseat the German Battleships from being the current top dogs in the meta (with the sole exception being the Yamato because of her guns).  Now this all said, that doesn't preclude the Izumo, Montana, Iowa, Missouri, Alabama, North Carolina or Amagi from being good ships.  It doesn't stop players who respect their weaknesses from performing not only well, but consistently dominating in the matches they play.  None of the ships listed are broken.  They're well balanced.

 

But for those who live in a comfortable, ignorant world of false dichotomies, if something's not the best, then they're not viable.  They're also trash.

 

To be fair IMO Bismark is just OP no if's or buts. As a tirpitz owner that ship makes my blood boil. The secondaries alone are overall more powerful than the torpedoes MO. Seening her then get Hydro and better AAA when IMO tirpitz is a well balanced ships jus grinds my gears somthing fierce.

 

Also as i've commented elsewhere the KM BB's are being helped by the BB heavy meta, it emphasises gunfire survival characteristics more.

Edited by Carl

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, one thing confuses me.

 

Even without the gaping citadel difference, the stats between the Alabama and North Carolina are not that different. Alabama is slightly more agile and has that amazing torpedo belt. NC has more accurate guns and better concealment. But only the Alabama is keeping that ridiculously easy to nail citadel *out of all the USN battleships*

 

Which brings up another balance disconnect.

 

Missouri is a MUCH better ship than Iowa in every single respect. Radar beats spotter plane hands down. Forward citadel armor is waaaay better. It has a thicker upper belt. There is simply no reason whatsoever to play Iowa once you have Missouri. Absolutely none. Missouri is simply OP compared to Iowa.

 

Yet the Missouri gets it's citadel lowered like the Iowa. It kinda makes me think that WG are pushing people to grind (and pay more) for the Missouri than picking up the Alabama in the store. I mean, who in their right minds would want to pay for the one and only battleship in the game that can still get deleted in one salvo with alarming regularity when there are other options available?

 

I'd much rather see some current advantages on the Alabama nerfed (for example, dropping the TDS from 50% to 40%) than keep her as easy to kill as she is now. A battleship should never feel more vulnerable than a cruiser, hence all the complaining about the Montana and Iowa. Not sure why they'd release one with that gaping vulnerability on the eve of finally fixing it on *every other ship*.

Edited by KaptainKaybe

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Forward citadel armor is waaaay better.

 

If you mean the forward citadel bulkhead, completely irrelevant, same for the belt difference, with in game T9 pen being what it is, you either arrange auto bounce over those areas or you will get penned.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you mean the forward citadel bulkhead, completely irrelevant, same for the belt difference, with in game T9 pen being what it is, you either arrange auto bounce over those areas or you will get penned.

 

I hope iChase puts together his video on penetration values and flight angles in the game.  He recruited me to help him collect data for a fascinating treatise worth discussing about the current in game armour models.  I won't spoil it -- it's definitely his pony to ride.  It's definitely related to the functional uselessness of the forward protection of Missouri versus Iowa.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Competitive, not optimal.  Competitive can compete.  Optimal are the most competitive out of all of the choices available.

 

Carl described it best.  I'm paraphrasing him, but an optimal ship in World of Warships is one that's very difficult to put at any sort of disadvantage.  That just doesn't describe high tier American or Japanese battleships grace of their vulnerabilities to taking citadel hits (both), inability to dodge torpedoes (both) and their vulnerability to air strikes (Japan).  Take Bismarck by contrast:

 

  • Vulnerability to citadel hits?  Conspicuously absent.
  • Inability to dodge torpedoes?  Got that covered with hydroacoustic search.
  • Vulnerability to air strikes?  Not so much.  Stonking good AA power.

 

In fact, the only balancing measure to the optimal (German) ships against which all Battleships are now compared is their firepower through having less guns and worse accuracy.  The difference in firepower would have to be significantly worse than it presently is to unseat the German Battleships from being the current top dogs in the meta (with the sole exception being the Yamato because of her guns).  Now this all said, that doesn't preclude the Izumo, Montana, Iowa, Missouri, Alabama, North Carolina or Amagi from being good ships.  It doesn't stop players who respect their weaknesses from performing not only well, but consistently dominating in the matches they play.  None of the ships listed are broken.  They're well balanced.

 

But for those who live in a comfortable, ignorant world of false dichotomies, if something's not the best, then they're not viable.  They're also trash.

 

Being an MMO gamer...that false dichotomy of "non-optimal = garbage" is particularly maddening to me. Especially if things are actually fairly well-balanced outside of top echelons of gameplay.

 

Alabama, from what I'm seeing of your review (by the way, I appreciate the time and detail you put into these things, it's very helpful for me), looks like quite the solid ship (hmm...just saw Chase's thread..."Solid but difficult" sounds exactly like what I was thinking). But, sadly, I'm not sure if I'm actually going to get it. I'm not much of a USN BB player in the first place and my wallet is still kind of screaming after getting my FFXIV Stormblood pre-order.

 

 

Edited by Rion12

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, here's something I've always wanted to know ...

 

What happens to the shell if it hits a really thin piece of armor it can lolpen? Yamato's guns will punch through the 32mm bow and then impact on the citadel armor behind. But what happens to that shell when it punches through the bow? Does that 32mm of armor slow it down? Does it add to the one behind it? Or is it simply completely ignored?

 

Same question for when you have a thin shell over citadel armor like on many battleships? Do shells pretend that shell is not even there, or does it add to the armor value of the thicker belt behind it?

 

P.S: if that's what you're analysing with iChase, it's fine to say you'll talk about it later ;)


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, here's something I've always wanted to know ...

 

What happens to the shell if it hits a really thin piece of armor it can lolpen? Yamato's guns will punch through the 32mm bow and then impact on the citadel armor behind. But what happens to that shell when it punches through the bow? Does that 32mm of armor slow it down? Does it add to the one behind it? Or is it simply completely ignored?

 

Same question for when you have a thin shell over citadel armor like on many battleships? Do shells pretend that shell is not even there, or does it add to the armor value of the thicker belt behind it?

 

P.S: if that's what you're analysing with iChase, it's fine to say you'll talk about it later ;)

 

I can answer that.

 

For an AP shell to detonate, its fuse needs to arm.  Only a certain thickness of armour will set off the fuse and the shell detonates at a proscribed time after arming.  The minimum thickness of armour to active the detonator is 1/6th of the shell's diameter (sound familiar?).  The timer on the detonators varies and can be balanced separately between weapons.  For example, low tier 283mm and 305mm guns detonate after 0.1s while 356mm guns detonate after 0.033s.    When an AP shell strikes a thin plate of armour, it "spends" some of its penetration value to punch through it.  Normally, armour angling comes into effect, so it's the relative armour thickness that's subtracted, not the raw value, though overmatching seems to use just the raw value in the calculation. 

 

So in your example, Yamato's guns will punch clean through 32mm of bow armour with contemptuous ease and then impact on the bulkhead of the citadel wall, arm, bounce around the interior of the engine / magazine before exploding.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good or bad after the crap storm we had to get this ship I feel obligated to buy her.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotcha. So to activate the fuse of a 406mm shell on a flat piece of armor, that armor would need to be at least 67mm thick, hence why BB shells almost always overpen destroyers. And why same can happen to AP hitting superstructures or the softer upper belts of cruisers. And correct me if I'm wrong (I very well could be wrong as my geometry could fail me here), but hitting armor at a 45 degree angle roughly doubles that armor thickness? In fact, does angling actually increase armor thickness as a general rule, or is it only used to calculate auto-bounce mechanics? So for example, if I angle Montana's 409mm citadel belt just enough to use my rear guns, would it greatly increase the thickness of that armor to make it functionally immune to citadels at that angle at medium and long ranges?


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I hope iChase puts together his video on penetration values and flight angles in the game.  He recruited me to help him collect data for a fascinating treatise worth discussing about the current in game armour models.  I won't spoil it -- it's definitely his pony to ride.  It's definitely related to the functional uselessness of the forward protection of Missouri versus Iowa.

 

Heh, yeah that should be interesting, given all the looking i've done at the back worked pen curves over on EU i doubt it will surprise me much mind but still worth looking forward to.

 

 

I can answer that.

 

For an AP shell to detonate, its fuse needs to arm.  Only a certain thickness of armour will set off the fuse and the shell detonates at a proscribed time after arming.  The minimum thickness of armour to active the detonator is 1/6th of the shell's diameter (sound familiar?).  The timer on the detonators varies and can be balanced separately between weapons.  For example, low tier 283mm and 305mm guns detonate after 0.1s while 356mm guns detonate after 0.033s.    When an AP shell strikes a thin plate of armour, it "spends" some of its penetration value to punch through it.  Normally, armour angling comes into effect, so it's the relative armour thickness that's subtracted, not the raw value, though overmatching seems to use just the raw value in the calculation. 

 

So in your example, Yamato's guns will punch clean through 32mm of bow armour with contemptuous ease and then impact on the bulkhead of the citadel wall, arm, bounce around the interior of the engine / magazine before exploding.

 

Addendum. Sub_Octavian confirmed that if structural steel in a ship brings a shell to a halt inside a ship, it will deal damage appropriate to where it stops regardless of weather the fuse arms. Hence why even Yamato AP can score normal pens on DD's somtimes.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if I angle Montana's 409mm citadel belt just enough to use my rear guns, would it greatly increase the thickness of that armor to make it functionally immune to citadels at that angle at medium and long ranges?

 

Basically, yes. However, keep in mine that angling your belt to the point where it becomes inpenetrable leads to other areas of your armor - the athwartship bulkheads - becoming vulnerable to fire that enters the bow, either through the bow side armor or the bow deck armor.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add to what lert is saying, even at 1 degree below auto bounce, (which probably isn't enough to get the Montana's aft guns into play), the effective belt thickness is only 695mm.  Yamato can pen that at around 2km and your bow is no longer an auto-bounce zone so every BB out there can pen it and it's only about 480 cumulative effective thickness between bow and wall plating. And an NC can go through at 15km.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good or bad after the crap storm we had to get this ship I feel obligated to buy her.

 

I honestly had hoped that after all the crapstorm about the Iowa, Monty and NC citadels that WG would go ahead and NOT [edited]up the Alabama in the same manner. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NoZoupforYou narrates through a replay by Lert and I.  It highlights the power of her guns combined with the fragility of her citadel.

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I don't get it. I really don't. Why is this citadel such a big deal for so many people? It's not like we didn't see this coming, and it's not like we were promised a German battleship masquerading as an American one. And it's not like having a high citadel immediately means you're getting blown out of the water as soon as the match starts.

As has been pointed out, you can easily work around the citadel. Hell, anyone who's sailed the Iowa, Missouri or Montana should know exactly how to do it too. In fact, Alabama has the agility that those ships do not, making her more capable of dealing with the high-citadel then they ever were.

As has been pointed out, she's par for the course as far as high tier USN battleships are concerned. Except, she also has the maneuverability of a standard. Which is amazing, to be honest.

As has been pointed out, the Alabama isn't going to be idiot-proof. She's a ship for a more experienced player to enjoy.

 

If you don't like the sound of all this, there's a simple solution. If you don't think you can work around the 'citadel of doom!', then don't buy the bloody ship! It's as simple as that.

 

Nobody said you have to like the Alabama, you know. Nor that she shouldn't have any flaws.      

 

I dont think the cit makes her a bad ship, I think it means shes a HARD boat to play. I mean, I love playing the Krispy Kreme, and shes got a MASSIVE cit. I think people really need to stop complaining and simply learn the ships quirks. ^^' 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will buy it.  So good job WG


 

I don't buy the argument that it would be OP with a waterline cit similar to the NC.  The NC still gets punished pretty good showing a broadside.  Not as bad as an Iowa but it isn't pretty if you turn and get caught.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm torn about this ship. I really wanted it, but the opinions of it's citadel really turn me off. The prospect of getting devastated striked by a Yamato shooting through my bow to land all AP shells at my citadel.... *shudders*

 

Of course, besides the Yamato, pretty much any higher tier BB will see an Alabama as nothing but a free DMG pinata. Might as well be a large, super clumsy cruiser with big guns in their eyes.

 

Dammit WG. What the frig where those ST's doing?? I'm sure there was more than a bunch voices their opinions against such a large citadel on a BB at high tiers... On their defense, I can only hope that it was WG who ignored them.

 

You do know that fear you have mentioned in your first sentence is completely possible with the iowa/missouri and montana yeah? Also in what world is there ever a dev that listens to complaints from testers and impliments EVERYTHING, especially when that alteration would turn the ship from strong to blatent P2W level OP. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.