Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
iChase

Alabama Review - Solid But Difficult

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

50 posts in this topic

 

IMO it's really simple mouse. Flexibility is generally considered more useful than extreme's in one or two area's. Although what counts as flexible is very meta dependent. The KM BB's are incredibly flexible as a whole, unless your trying to snipe from extreme range there's little they do poorly. So it's very hard to get them into a bad situation in general terms beyond very obvious basic mistakes.

 

The citadels certainly get a lot of credit, but it's a long way from the whole story.

 

Equally i think a lot of it is meta changes rather than KM BB's specifically that have transformed opinions on citadels. Remember back in beta when most BB drivers advised not targeting cruisers because they were too hard to kill. Now look at the high tier cruiser situation. People have learned about vulnerabilities and adjusted their targeting appropriately. And ofc the KM BB's will have pushed people to target the non-KM BB's even more as their a so much easier target. All of this produces a very real change in perceived durability on the user end and elevates one of the ships weaknesses a little bit more. Simply put the degree to which a tall citadel is a disadvantage has grown in real terms over time IMO. KM BB's just accelerated the percolation to general consciousness by providing a sharp contrast.

 

That doesn't mean i disagree with your Alabam review, but i also don;t think the changes in citadel perception have been entirely driven by how good the KM are in that regard, rather i think they highlighted an issue that was allready there and on the cusp of being generally noticed.

 

Not to mention the gross shift in meta towards, "If you're not KMBB, bow on slow forward/reverse to survive"

 

I [edited]HATE that meta and that's all you're allowed to do in tiers 8-10 with USN BBs.  Now the Alabama is included in the garbage heap.  That is an absolute travesty.


3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's because their armor schemes emphasize better protection at closer ranges. At long range, it's quite vulnerable to plunging fire, which is something, for example, SHS shells were meant to exploit, the power of plunging fire. 

 

Of course, good luck shooting from far enough away to get plunging fire.

 

Exactly - it's just another way the game mechanics stab the USN ships in the face with a hot bar of "Hahahahahahahaahahaaaaaa!!!!!"

 

Take torpedoes for example - they were removed because they were too huge a liability.  Struck by a shell and the whole ship could go down - so they decided to get rid of them.  That is a HUGE loss in ability in this game that no other nation suffers from - yet they also suffer zero of the drawbacks of having 10+ 600lb warheads sitting on their decks just waiting to explode.

 

It's punative measures like this that drive me up a damned wall when it comes to USN ship representation in this game.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The torpedo decision seems fairly straightforward. Do you punish 4 to 5 other cruiser lines, or shaft just one.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 That, or shrink Citadels down to include ONLY the ammo magazines under the main batteries, which is actually where they should be, since ammo is all that actually catastrophically exploded like in this game.

 

To be fair, boilers explode in a pretty dramatic fashion too.  Warspite's boilers typically operated around 525psi if my sources are correct.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Exactly - it's just another way the game mechanics stab the USN ships in the face with a hot bar of "Hahahahahahahaahahaaaaaa!!!!!"

 

Take torpedoes for example - they were removed because they were too huge a liability.  Struck by a shell and the whole ship could go down - so they decided to get rid of them.  That is a HUGE loss in ability in this game that no other nation suffers from - yet they also suffer zero of the drawbacks of having 10+ 600lb warheads sitting on their decks just waiting to explode.

 

It's punative measures like this that drive me up a damned wall when it comes to USN ship representation in this game.

 

 

EXACTLY.  Balance or Historical accuracy?  Applied only as it negatively affects USN ships. 

 

High [edited]citadels?  Balance

No STS, Balance

No Torps?  Balance

20knt speed?  Historical accuracy

701ms velocity, historical accuracy

305mm armor belt: Historical accuracy

Dont give the USN Dreadnoughts their latest war refits?  Balance

 

Yeah.......there isnt one instance in this game where balance or historical accuracy is actually benefitting the USN in any way. 

 

Some of these instances combine to really hammer home the [edited]aspects of the USN ships and really make them irritating hunks of junk. 

Edited by KnightFandragon

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just going to make this MAJOR point these high citadel deniers aren't so bad seem to fail to realize. Nearly all normal IJN BB's with exception of the Yamato all have near water line citadels not a single one comes close to being what Iowa/Montana. Its the same story for US BB's until you get T9/10 they all near waterline citadels.

 

So yeah if you want Alabama that can't do anything but sit at 1/4 speed bow on and shoot with your less accurate guns then the NC go ahead buy it. The Alabama won't reward you anymore then the NC when it comes to skill level.

 

Edited by SpeedingBus

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's because their armor schemes emphasize better protection at closer ranges. At long range, it's quite vulnerable to plunging fire, which is something, for example, SHS shells were meant to exploit, the power of plunging fire. 

 

Of course, good luck shooting from far enough away to get plunging fire.

 

Nah most BB's can shoot far enough away that if autbounce wasn't in they could penetrate some things, (it would depend a lot on ship firing vs target). I'm still in the process of factoring in in-game krupp into these number,s but here's deck pen of a variety of guns calculated using in game back worked formulae using navweps velocity vs range and angle of fall vs range data.

 

BjzwIXa.png

 

 

Citadel issue wouldnt be an issue if WG would just put in all the ships STS, armor plates, put the armor in the right spots, shrink it down properly, make it the right width.  Arizona, New Mex, they already have ships that dont get [edited] by citadels, and its cuz  they put in all the armor.  Those ships are still missing the STS, which would add a few more inches over the entire ship, but yeah....citadels are only an issue at high tier cuz WG has this obsession for huge citadel pens for some reason.  That, or shrink Citadels down to include ONLY the ammo magazines under the main batteries, which is actually where they should be, since ammo is all that actually catastrophically exploded like in this game. 

 

The thickness of armor to have ot go through if WG put in all the armor and STS is like 540mm. before you angle it.  Throw in just the 19 degrees of the belt angle and then a little bit of our own angling and lol, one tough [edited]ship. 

 

 

STS would make no difference pen is far more than even KM BB total effective armour (>500mm in many cases). USn Citedels are exactly where they should be. New mex's is lower because it was lower IRL.

Edited by Carl

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To be fair, boilers explode in a pretty dramatic fashion too.  Warspite's boilers typically operated around 525psi if my sources are correct.

 

6V3itH9.jpg

 

 

Tehehehehehe...


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alabama has little stat difference from NC.

 

iChase your videos on NC are all VERY POSITIVE with the video names such as:

 

 

Alabama is not different enough from NC to warrant rating the ship "difficult".

The top rated players in NC performs with avg damage around 100k. The overall win rate for NC is also good. There's no reason for Alabama to be anywhere near "difficult".

Edited by NeutralState

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alabama has little stat difference from NC.

 

iChase your videos on NC are all VERY POSITIVE with the video names such as:

 

 

Alabama is not different enough from NC to warrant rating the ship "difficult".

The top rated players in NC performs with avg damage around 100k. The overall win rate for NC is also good. There's no reason for Alabama to be anywhere near "difficult".

 

The higher citadel and slightly worse sigma does make more demands on the player to be more careful with 1) positioning 2) angling their armour and 3) aiming better

 

She's going to be more difficult to play compared to NC


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the new forum icon you choice I-chase!

 

Also hope your mother gets better soon! :aqua:

 

I don't (the forum icon that is). It looks childish. Are you still a child I-Chase?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alabama has little stat difference from NC.

 

iChase your videos on NC are all VERY POSITIVE with the video names such as:

 

 

Alabama is not different enough from NC to warrant rating the ship "difficult".

The top rated players in NC performs with avg damage around 100k. The overall win rate for NC is also good. There's no reason for Alabama to be anywhere near "difficult".

 

The Alabama has a skyscraper citadel and weaker belt armor underneath the water line. This means that the ship can and will get smashed by T6 BBs if you're not paying attention. Alabama also has a humongous superstructure similar in design to the Iowa. When I played the Iowa, I would take regular penetrations from plunging BB shells into the superstructure whenever I was angled. The Izumo beats the Iowa in terms of bow on durability against AP because of this. Alabama will probably have the same issue. So good players can wreck your superstructure if you try to angle your belt armor towards them. Pretty anecdotal, but I think it's worth mentioning. 

 

These glaring flaws make the ship more difficult to play than the NC. Does this make the ship trash and unplayable? No. But would I take this ship over the NC based on its pros and cons? Probably not. I will agree with Flamu that it does look like a mediocre version of the NC. The notion that it is a steaming pile of garbage seems to come from his fans who like to spam Twitch memes, not from Flamu himself.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Alabama has a skyscraper citadel and weaker belt armor underneath the water line. This means that the ship can and will get smashed by T6 BBs if you're not paying attention. Alabama also has a humongous superstructure similar in design to the Iowa. When I played the Iowa, I would take regular penetrations from plunging BB shells into the superstructure whenever I was angled. The Izumo beats the Iowa in terms of bow on durability against AP because of this. Alabama will probably have the same issue. So good players can wreck your superstructure if you try to angle your belt armor towards them. Pretty anecdotal, but I think it's worth mentioning. 

 

These glaring flaws make the ship more difficult to play than the NC. Does this make the ship trash and unplayable? No. But would I take this ship over the NC based on its pros and cons? Probably not. I will agree with Flamu that it does look like a mediocre version of the NC. The notion that it is a steaming pile of garbage seems to come from his fans who like to spam Twitch memes, not from Flamu himself.

 

That and the fact its gunna cost ya 54 bucks for a rolling citadel.......so worth it lol.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the "dispersion is ok" argument in the video.

It is wrong to say "sigma = 1.8 is ok on USN BB" when tier 7+ USN BBs all have better sigma. In fact North Carolina, Iowa and Montana used to have sigma values of 1.8 and they all had to be buffed to what they are now, which clearly says "sigma = 1.8 is not ok on USN BB". German BBs have armor and secondaries to compensate for sigma values of 1.8, Alabama has to stay at mid range to pray for better rng?


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Battleship sigma varies from 1.5 to 2.1.  Most players can't properly identify sigma based solely one the volleys they fire.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Battleship sigma varies from 1.5 to 2.1.  Most players can't properly identify sigma based solely one the volleys they fire.

Players may not be able to read the values of sigma from the volleys they fire, but sigma value is still a key characteristic of the guns and adjusted by WG when balancing ships. What the video says "dispersion was not good at first but 'magically' got better after 20 games" is simply unconvincing, it just says the dispersion is inconsistent and you should pray to have better rng.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just going to make this MAJOR point these high citadel deniers aren't so bad seem to fail to realize. Nearly all normal IJN BB's with exception of the Yamato all have near water line citadels not a single one comes close to being what Iowa/Montana. Its the same story for US BB's until you get T9/10 they all near waterline citadels.

 

So yeah if you want Alabama that can't do anything but sit at 1/4 speed bow on and shoot with your less accurate guns then the NC go ahead buy it. The Alabama won't reward you anymore then the NC when it comes to skill level.

 

 

The fact that my Amagi seems dramatically more tanky than my NC has always struck me as highly amusing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Players may not be able to read the values of sigma from the volleys they fire, but sigma value is still a key characteristic of the guns and adjusted by WG when balancing ships. What the video says "dispersion was not good at first but 'magically' got better after 20 games" is simply unconvincing, it just says the dispersion is inconsistent and you should pray to have better rng.

 

I think it's simply not that it got magically better but he just got used to it and aimed better.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think it's simply not that it got magically better but he just got used to it and aimed better.

 

How does one "aim better" to counter the spread of RNG?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How does one "aim better" to counter the spread of RNG?

 

Well, if you don't aim at the waterline all the time, you have fewer shots that go into the water - so you'll get more hits and do more damage.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How does one "aim better" to counter the spread of RNG?

 

A lot of players aim a littile too far ahead or behind, from above the front and rear of the ship are much smaller targets than the central area. rop your shells there reliably enough and you'll see a much better hit rate.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the "dispersion is ok" argument in the video.

It is wrong to say "sigma = 1.8 is ok on USN BB" when tier 7+ USN BBs all have better sigma. In fact North Carolina, Iowa and Montana used to have sigma values of 1.8 and they all had to be buffed to what they are now, which clearly says "sigma = 1.8 is not ok on USN BB". German BBs have armor and secondaries to compensate for sigma values of 1.8, Alabama has to stay at mid range to pray for better rng?

 

I agree with this statement.  The North Carolina was not fun to play with it's pre-buff dispersion.  I sure as heck don't want to buy a premium that has the same issue as the pre-buff North Carolina AND has crap armor on top of that.  Not only do USN BBs have lower end dispersion, they also have slow shells, which hang a lot, making it even harder to hit things.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing about the gameplay in that video seemed fun to me. Sitting in the back, making short pushes and then turning to angle away again constantly trying to minimize exposure to the citadel. I also don't understand the verdict, to buy the ship if one enjoys a difficult learning curve? I wouldn't pay $60+ to be frustrated.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.