Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
warp103

First Impression of the USS Iowa

54 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

180
[-TXT-]
Members
549 posts
13,334 battles

  Why does the Iowa feel as though it a bit worst then the North Carolina.

I was expecting, a leap  or a change like I did from the Colorado.

Am I wrong it see leap and bounds better??? I am just doing it wrong.

 Again this is just a first impression maybe I will feel very different after lots of battles. But..... I just do not see it. Specially since I a 3/4 of the way to the Missouri.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
105
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Beta Testers
293 posts
7,414 battles

stock iowa is pain. it doesn't show its true potential till the C hull.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,673
[POP]
Beta Testers
4,735 posts
7,019 battles

Every stock ship feels worse than the a fully upgraded previous tier.  Iowa is no exception.  

 

i'm pretty sure stock NC is MUCH better than fully upgraded colorado.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,252
[WOLF3]
Members
28,272 posts
24,681 battles

5 bad things going for her.

1.  She's immensely long but this is a common characteristic of Tier IX+ BBs.

2.  She turns like a dead whale.

3.  Her armor is worthless, easily the weakest of all Tier IX BBs.  Missouri isn't far behind in worthless armor.

4.  She has a high citadel.  However, word is WG is lowering Iowa / Missouri / Montana citadels.

5.  The aft armor of her citadel is 16mm.

 

5 good things going for her.

1.  Excellent AA on a BB.

2.  Fastest BB in the game.

3.  Better guns than NC and upcoming Alabama of Tier VIII.  They have 16"/45 guns while Iowa / Missouri / Montana pack 16"/50 guns.  These guns if given the opportunity are painful.

4.  Unlike Tier VIII and below USN BBs, Tier IX+ USN BBs can slot APRM2 to improve dispersion by 11%.

5.  Tough bow on / forward.

 

Iowa can be made to work but she is easily the most unforgiving high tier BB.  Alabama will take that spot soon though, especially if Iowa / Missouri / Montana get their citadels lowered and not 'Bama's.  Currently Iowa / Missouri can be smashed like this, an embarrassing fate that no other high tier BB faces:

gJkueyh.jpg

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,673
[POP]
Beta Testers
4,735 posts
7,019 battles

 

gJkueyh.jpg

 

this is not smashing,this is a complete humiliation,you vaporized it,desintegrated,nuked it, ripped her head off and crapped down her neck,chewed her butt,absolutely gave her a ticket to port city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
252
[WOLF8]
Members
381 posts
7,737 battles

In the two games you played it, you almost doubled your average damage from NC.  Sorry, but I'm not interested in a troll channel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,533
[PSA]
Members
5,113 posts
3,732 battles

She is fast and has excellent punchy guns.

 

She is a beautiful fun ship. Unless you get fired upon by another battleship or a cruiser within 10km. Then she stops being fun. Fortunately, she is (supposedly) getting a citadel buff soon within a month or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,852
Alpha Tester
7,170 posts
4,063 battles

Alabama isn't getting her citadel lowered so they can 'wait and see' if it's just as terrible as it is now.

 

When adjusting American ships for balance you need the following criteria:

  • 13 certified historical documents dipped in the fresh blood of FDR.
  • 18 months of testing to conduct 'research'
  • Complaints from the Devs about how they'd have to 'remodel everything'
  • Explain how it's more than simply changing numbers behind the scenes
  • At least 8 instances of contradictory statements from the Devs.
  • Does Historical accuracy make it stronger? - "It's a video game, and not subject to historical balance."
  • Does Historical accuracy make it weaker? - "It's important that we maintain historical accuracy."
  • A complete and utter lack of understanding why a historically great ship being last behind 4 paper designs would upset anyone.
  • What's it's niche? Best penetration values, great armor, best close range ships, best gun boat, best AA range, best AA dps, Defensive Fire exclutivity, being mediocre below average at everything makes you strong!
  • Confusing standards!
    • How is HP figured? Tonnage! What about the Colorado being horrible under HP? Balance!
    • Why does the USN secondaries fire so slowly? Balance!
      • But they have crap range, and less guns than everyone else. BALANCE!
      • But aren't I supposed to get close? Balance!
      • But the Germans and Japan get torpedoes? BALANCE!
    • Why do all these paper ships fire such low trajectories - Balance, and because the guns were once fired at that speed.
      • Okay, so can we get the less flat arcs on the USN guns? No It's historically accurate, they fired like that to preserve barrel life.
      • Okay, so we we nerf the other guns of paper ships, so that they could fire more than 4 times in real life? No, this game doesn't model barrel wear.
    • Why is overmatch the way it is? Historical accuracy!
      • Well how come the USN BBs are the only ones at Tier 9 and 10 who can be lul penned? Just the formula, not our fault.
      • Uh... so can you fix that for balance reasons? No, it's historically accurate.
      • But... isn't the Montana completely incorrect, using a mash up of multiple designs? Balance.
    • Thanks for fixing the armor model on the Aoba, the 2mm of armor on the rear bulkhead was important - Historical accuracy comrad.
      • Can you fix the armor imperfections on the Iowa? No it's balanced
        • But the ship is on par with the Izumo, which is the worst Tier 9 BB, and worst IJN BB in the game! Balance. We'll look into buffing Izumo.
          • But you said you want the Yamato to be good because she was good irl, and don't want to upset people by making her not the best Tier 10 BB, why can't the Iowa be good at Tier 9? *silence*
  • When can we expect the updates to the USN cruisers? Soon!
    • 12 months later - Still soon? Yes!
    • 16 months later - Soon? yes!
    • 20 months later, after all the contradictions, no modeling changes, and numbers behind the scenes changed  it's released - Why are you mad? We gave you what you wanted! (Sorry SO)

 

I mean, I've been here since Alpha, and my frustration with the Dev Team and War Gaming in general is that they seem to contradict themselves often in reference to the USN ships, and don't seem to have any real direction for them. Any plans they talk about for them generally get drug out for far too long because of excuses that don't even end up playing into the actual solution by the time it releases, and when they release new lines of ships they seem to completely and utterly forget that the USN existed, and over-right any strength they had in a certain area.

 

I know this probably offends War Gaming staff, but all I'm really asking for is some dang consistency and for it took look like you have an actual plan. Being lied too isn't my idea of fun, and being strung along waiting on balance changes because you have to make 'drastic changes' that delay the buffs for months, only for nothing drastic to change besides numbers is worse. I would have rather WGing just came out and said: "Honestly, right now we don't give a crapabout USN Cruisers because we don't know what to do with them." That would have been way better, because at least it would have been honest.

  • Cool 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,240
[NDA]
Beta Testers
5,248 posts
8,753 battles

She has a very specific playstyle, which can be great, but also limits how you move around the map a lot

 

She will always be the original bastion fort,  before it was even released.  Then she can turn into a fast BB when needed to escape or position into your next bastion fort spot.  
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
462 posts
6,272 battles

Alabama isn't getting her citadel lowered so they can 'wait and see' if it's just as terrible as it is now.

 

When adjusting American ships for balance you need the following criteria:

  • 13 certified historical documents dipped in the fresh blood of FDR.
  • 18 months of testing to conduct 'research'
  • Complaints from the Devs about how they'd have to 'remodel everything'
  • Explain how it's more than simply changing numbers behind the scenes
  • At least 8 instances of contradictory statements from the Devs.
  • Does Historical accuracy make it stronger? - "It's a video game, and not subject to historical balance."
  • Does Historical accuracy make it weaker? - "It's important that we maintain historical accuracy."
  • A complete and utter lack of understanding why a historically great ship being last behind 4 paper designs would upset anyone.
  • What's it's niche? Best penetration values, great armor, best close range ships, best gun boat, best AA range, best AA dps, Defensive Fire exclutivity, being mediocre below average at everything makes you strong!
  • Confusing standards!
    • How is HP figured? Tonnage! What about the Colorado being horrible under HP? Balance!
    • Why does the USN secondaries fire so slowly? Balance!
      • But they have crap range, and less guns than everyone else. BALANCE!
      • But aren't I supposed to get close? Balance!
      • But the Germans and Japan get torpedoes? BALANCE!
    • Why do all these paper ships fire such low trajectories - Balance, and because the guns were once fired at that speed.
      • Okay, so can we get the less flat arcs on the USN guns? No It's historically accurate, they fired like that to preserve barrel life.
      • Okay, so we we nerf the other guns of paper ships, so that they could fire more than 4 times in real life? No, this game doesn't model barrel wear.
    • Why is overmatch the way it is? Historical accuracy!
      • Well how come the USN BBs are the only ones at Tier 9 and 10 who can be lul penned? Just the formula, not our fault.
      • Uh... so can you fix that for balance reasons? No, it's historically accurate.
      • But... isn't the Montana completely incorrect, using a mash up of multiple designs? Balance.
    • Thanks for fixing the armor model on the Aoba, the 2mm of armor on the rear bulkhead was important - Historical accuracy comrad.
      • Can you fix the armor imperfections on the Iowa? No it's balanced
        • But the ship is on par with the Izumo, which is the worst Tier 9 BB, and worst IJN BB in the game! Balance. We'll look into buffing Izumo.
          • But you said you want the Yamato to be good because she was good irl, and don't want to upset people by making her not the best Tier 10 BB, why can't the Iowa be good at Tier 9? *silence*
  • When can we expect the updates to the USN cruisers? Soon!
    • 12 months later - Still soon? Yes!
    • 16 months later - Soon? yes!
    • 20 months later, after all the contradictions, no modeling changes, and numbers behind the scenes changed  it's released - Why are you mad? We gave you what you wanted! (Sorry SO)

 

I mean, I've been here since Alpha, and my frustration with the Dev Team and War Gaming in general is that they seem to contradict themselves often in reference to the USN ships, and don't seem to have any real direction for them. Any plans they talk about for them generally get drug out for far too long because of excuses that don't even end up playing into the actual solution by the time it releases, and when they release new lines of ships they seem to completely and utterly forget that the USN existed, and over-right any strength they had in a certain area.

 

I know this probably offends War Gaming staff, but all I'm really asking for is some dang consistency and for it took look like you have an actual plan. Being lied too isn't my idea of fun, and being strung along waiting on balance changes because you have to make 'drastic changes' that delay the buffs for months, only for nothing drastic to change besides numbers is worse. I would have rather WGing just came out and said: "Honestly, right now we don't give a crapabout USN Cruisers because we don't know what to do with them." That would have been way better, because at least it would have been honest.

 

Could not have said it better. Spot on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,452
[REVY]
Members
8,099 posts
6,118 battles

Alabama isn't getting her citadel lowered so they can 'wait and see' if it's just as terrible as it is now.

 

When adjusting American ships for balance you need the following criteria:

  • 13 certified historical documents dipped in the fresh blood of FDR.
  • 18 months of testing to conduct 'research'
  • Complaints from the Devs about how they'd have to 'remodel everything'
  • Explain how it's more than simply changing numbers behind the scenes
  • At least 8 instances of contradictory statements from the Devs.
  • Does Historical accuracy make it stronger? - "It's a video game, and not subject to historical balance."
  • Does Historical accuracy make it weaker? - "It's important that we maintain historical accuracy."
  • A complete and utter lack of understanding why a historically great ship being last behind 4 paper designs would upset anyone.
  • What's it's niche? Best penetration values, great armor, best close range ships, best gun boat, best AA range, best AA dps, Defensive Fire exclutivity, being mediocre below average at everything makes you strong!
  • Confusing standards!
    • How is HP figured? Tonnage! What about the Colorado being horrible under HP? Balance!
    • Why does the USN secondaries fire so slowly? Balance!
      • But they have crap range, and less guns than everyone else. BALANCE!
      • But aren't I supposed to get close? Balance!
      • But the Germans and Japan get torpedoes? BALANCE!
    • Why do all these paper ships fire such low trajectories - Balance, and because the guns were once fired at that speed.
      • Okay, so can we get the less flat arcs on the USN guns? No It's historically accurate, they fired like that to preserve barrel life.
      • Okay, so we we nerf the other guns of paper ships, so that they could fire more than 4 times in real life? No, this game doesn't model barrel wear.
    • Why is overmatch the way it is? Historical accuracy!
      • Well how come the USN BBs are the only ones at Tier 9 and 10 who can be lul penned? Just the formula, not our fault.
      • Uh... so can you fix that for balance reasons? No, it's historically accurate.
      • But... isn't the Montana completely incorrect, using a mash up of multiple designs? Balance.
    • Thanks for fixing the armor model on the Aoba, the 2mm of armor on the rear bulkhead was important - Historical accuracy comrad.
      • Can you fix the armor imperfections on the Iowa? No it's balanced
        • But the ship is on par with the Izumo, which is the worst Tier 9 BB, and worst IJN BB in the game! Balance. We'll look into buffing Izumo.
          • But you said you want the Yamato to be good because she was good irl, and don't want to upset people by making her not the best Tier 10 BB, why can't the Iowa be good at Tier 9? *silence*
  • When can we expect the updates to the USN cruisers? Soon!
    • 12 months later - Still soon? Yes!
    • 16 months later - Soon? yes!
    • 20 months later, after all the contradictions, no modeling changes, and numbers behind the scenes changed  it's released - Why are you mad? We gave you what you wanted! (Sorry SO)

 

I mean, I've been here since Alpha, and my frustration with the Dev Team and War Gaming in general is that they seem to contradict themselves often in reference to the USN ships, and don't seem to have any real direction for them. Any plans they talk about for them generally get drug out for far too long because of excuses that don't even end up playing into the actual solution by the time it releases, and when they release new lines of ships they seem to completely and utterly forget that the USN existed, and over-right any strength they had in a certain area.

 

I know this probably offends War Gaming staff, but all I'm really asking for is some dang consistency and for it took look like you have an actual plan. Being lied too isn't my idea of fun, and being strung along waiting on balance changes because you have to make 'drastic changes' that delay the buffs for months, only for nothing drastic to change besides numbers is worse. I would have rather WGing just came out and said: "Honestly, right now we don't give a crapabout USN Cruisers because we don't know what to do with them." That would have been way better, because at least it would have been honest.

 

Yes, I'll never understand that line of logic that they say when a modeling error is caught, but kept in the game ship for "balance".  How hard is it to nerf something else in order to improve historical accuracy of the modeling?  The SoDaks were among the toughest armored Battleships built, but after the citadel is lowered on the Montana and Iowa, the Alabama will be one of the most vulnerable Battleships in-game.  That's completely backwards, COMPLETELY!  Even Lert and LWM defend this, saying she'd be OP being tough and agile, but how hard would it have been to nerf the gun accuracy?  Make the Alabama a brawler as her armor would suggest?  The Bismarck was an accurate ship, but this game nerfed that trait out of her, why doesn't Alabama follow in her footsteps?  Both were very tough ships.  Why did WGing design the ship so she could be insta-deleted?

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
690
[NUWES]
Members
3,244 posts
11,567 battles

The problem is it has such a long hull and abysmal agility. That makes any positioning mistake you make very punishing especially if your team isn't scounting well either with DDs or with planes. If you get a team willing to push and scout DDs screening out ahead of you so you can position properly the ship does quite well. I suspect the high citadel in Alabama won't be nearly as big a problem because that ship is very agile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,094 posts
2,152 battles

Alabama isn't getting her citadel lowered so they can 'wait and see' if it's just as terrible as it is now.

 

When adjusting American ships for balance you need the following criteria:

  • 13 certified historical documents dipped in the fresh blood of FDR.
  • 18 months of testing to conduct 'research'
  • Complaints from the Devs about how they'd have to 'remodel everything'
  • Explain how it's more than simply changing numbers behind the scenes
  • At least 8 instances of contradictory statements from the Devs.
  • Does Historical accuracy make it stronger? - "It's a video game, and not subject to historical balance."
  • Does Historical accuracy make it weaker? - "It's important that we maintain historical accuracy."
  • A complete and utter lack of understanding why a historically great ship being last behind 4 paper designs would upset anyone.
  • What's it's niche? Best penetration values, great armor, best close range ships, best gun boat, best AA range, best AA dps, Defensive Fire exclutivity, being mediocre below average at everything makes you strong!
  • Confusing standards!
    • How is HP figured? Tonnage! What about the Colorado being horrible under HP? Balance!
    • Why does the USN secondaries fire so slowly? Balance!
      • But they have crap range, and less guns than everyone else. BALANCE!
      • But aren't I supposed to get close? Balance!
      • But the Germans and Japan get torpedoes? BALANCE!
    • Why do all these paper ships fire such low trajectories - Balance, and because the guns were once fired at that speed.
      • Okay, so can we get the less flat arcs on the USN guns? No It's historically accurate, they fired like that to preserve barrel life.
      • Okay, so we we nerf the other guns of paper ships, so that they could fire more than 4 times in real life? No, this game doesn't model barrel wear.
    • Why is overmatch the way it is? Historical accuracy!
      • Well how come the USN BBs are the only ones at Tier 9 and 10 who can be lul penned? Just the formula, not our fault.
      • Uh... so can you fix that for balance reasons? No, it's historically accurate.
      • But... isn't the Montana completely incorrect, using a mash up of multiple designs? Balance.
    • Thanks for fixing the armor model on the Aoba, the 2mm of armor on the rear bulkhead was important - Historical accuracy comrad.
      • Can you fix the armor imperfections on the Iowa? No it's balanced
        • But the ship is on par with the Izumo, which is the worst Tier 9 BB, and worst IJN BB in the game! Balance. We'll look into buffing Izumo.
          • But you said you want the Yamato to be good because she was good irl, and don't want to upset people by making her not the best Tier 10 BB, why can't the Iowa be good at Tier 9? *silence*
  • When can we expect the updates to the USN cruisers? Soon!
    • 12 months later - Still soon? Yes!
    • 16 months later - Soon? yes!
    • 20 months later, after all the contradictions, no modeling changes, and numbers behind the scenes changed  it's released - Why are you mad? We gave you what you wanted! (Sorry SO)

 

I mean, I've been here since Alpha, and my frustration with the Dev Team and War Gaming in general is that they seem to contradict themselves often in reference to the USN ships, and don't seem to have any real direction for them. Any plans they talk about for them generally get drug out for far too long because of excuses that don't even end up playing into the actual solution by the time it releases, and when they release new lines of ships they seem to completely and utterly forget that the USN existed, and over-right any strength they had in a certain area.

 

I know this probably offends War Gaming staff, but all I'm really asking for is some dang consistency and for it took look like you have an actual plan. Being lied too isn't my idea of fun, and being strung along waiting on balance changes because you have to make 'drastic changes' that delay the buffs for months, only for nothing drastic to change besides numbers is worse. I would have rather WGing just came out and said: "Honestly, right now we don't give a crapabout USN Cruisers because we don't know what to do with them." That would have been way better, because at least it would have been honest.

 

Out-[edited]-standing post!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
180
[-TXT-]
Members
549 posts
13,334 battles

In the two games you played it, you almost doubled your average damage from NC.  Sorry, but I'm not interested in a troll channel.

 

I double my average only because I had  a few game in the NC that I did not load in and got Deleted with zero damage since the micro patch. I was at win8 of 1493  before then. Again 2 game were everything when perfect still make me feel overall that the NC is better. And 110k damage would be dlb..Plus only got 1 kill(out of 2 battles} and that was a kill secure not a true kill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
180
[-TXT-]
Members
549 posts
13,334 battles

 

i'm pretty sure stock NC is MUCH better than fully upgraded colorado.

 

I am comparing both at stock. I did the same impression on the NC. So Stock NC still feel better that a Stock Iowa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,252
[WOLF3]
Members
28,272 posts
24,681 battles

To add onto the "Historical Accuracy" thing, we have an entire tech tree line of ships that shoot only AP when that was not the case in reality.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,097
[KNMSU]
Members
7,086 posts
7,766 battles

stock iowa is pain. it doesn't show its true potential till the C hull.

 

It never really improves that much, let's be honest. The thing is a floating citadel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,498
Beta Testers
6,868 posts
4,189 battles

Alabama isn't getting her citadel lowered so they can 'wait and see' if it's just as terrible as it is now.

 

When adjusting American ships for balance you need the following criteria:

  • 13 certified historical documents dipped in the fresh blood of FDR.
  • 18 months of testing to conduct 'research'
  • Complaints from the Devs about how they'd have to 'remodel everything'
  • Explain how it's more than simply changing numbers behind the scenes
  • At least 8 instances of contradictory statements from the Devs.
  • Does Historical accuracy make it stronger? - "It's a video game, and not subject to historical balance."
  • Does Historical accuracy make it weaker? - "It's important that we maintain historical accuracy."
  • A complete and utter lack of understanding why a historically great ship being last behind 4 paper designs would upset anyone.
  • What's it's niche? Best penetration values, great armor, best close range ships, best gun boat, best AA range, best AA dps, Defensive Fire exclutivity, being mediocre below average at everything makes you strong!
  • Confusing standards!
    • How is HP figured? Tonnage! What about the Colorado being horrible under HP? Balance!
    • Why does the USN secondaries fire so slowly? Balance!
      • But they have crap range, and less guns than everyone else. BALANCE!
      • But aren't I supposed to get close? Balance!
      • But the Germans and Japan get torpedoes? BALANCE!
    • Why do all these paper ships fire such low trajectories - Balance, and because the guns were once fired at that speed.
      • Okay, so can we get the less flat arcs on the USN guns? No It's historically accurate, they fired like that to preserve barrel life.
      • Okay, so we we nerf the other guns of paper ships, so that they could fire more than 4 times in real life? No, this game doesn't model barrel wear.
    • Why is overmatch the way it is? Historical accuracy!
      • Well how come the USN BBs are the only ones at Tier 9 and 10 who can be lul penned? Just the formula, not our fault.
      • Uh... so can you fix that for balance reasons? No, it's historically accurate.
      • But... isn't the Montana completely incorrect, using a mash up of multiple designs? Balance.
    • Thanks for fixing the armor model on the Aoba, the 2mm of armor on the rear bulkhead was important - Historical accuracy comrad.
      • Can you fix the armor imperfections on the Iowa? No it's balanced
        • But the ship is on par with the Izumo, which is the worst Tier 9 BB, and worst IJN BB in the game! Balance. We'll look into buffing Izumo.
          • But you said you want the Yamato to be good because she was good irl, and don't want to upset people by making her not the best Tier 10 BB, why can't the Iowa be good at Tier 9? *silence*
  • When can we expect the updates to the USN cruisers? Soon!
    • 12 months later - Still soon? Yes!
    • 16 months later - Soon? yes!
    • 20 months later, after all the contradictions, no modeling changes, and numbers behind the scenes changed  it's released - Why are you mad? We gave you what you wanted! (Sorry SO)

 

I mean, I've been here since Alpha, and my frustration with the Dev Team and War Gaming in general is that they seem to contradict themselves often in reference to the USN ships, and don't seem to have any real direction for them. Any plans they talk about for them generally get drug out for far too long because of excuses that don't even end up playing into the actual solution by the time it releases, and when they release new lines of ships they seem to completely and utterly forget that the USN existed, and over-right any strength they had in a certain area.

 

I know this probably offends War Gaming staff, but all I'm really asking for is some dang consistency and for it took look like you have an actual plan. Being lied too isn't my idea of fun, and being strung along waiting on balance changes because you have to make 'drastic changes' that delay the buffs for months, only for nothing drastic to change besides numbers is worse. I would have rather WGing just came out and said: "Honestly, right now we don't give a crapabout USN Cruisers because we don't know what to do with them." That would have been way better, because at least it would have been honest.

 

Nailed it.

 

USN had the best FCS by far?  Oh we replace that with cross hairs.  Never mind that turns the one navy that could reliably score first salvo hits, the only navy that could both shoot and maneuver into the least accurate navy because is only game comrade!

 

All T10 paper CAs have 30mm decks to prevent lolpens but Des Moines has 28mm?  Is history comrade!  Important history facts that cannot be changed!  Nor can the 14.2 overmatch number because we cherry picked it to be able to lolpen USN BB bows, without the reverse being true!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
282
[-MS-]
Beta Testers
1,465 posts
4,102 battles

  Why does the Iowa feel as though it a bit worst then the North Carolina.

I was expecting, a leap  or a change like I did from the Colorado.

Am I wrong it see leap and bounds better??? I am just doing it wrong.

 Again this is just a first impression maybe I will feel very different after lots of battles. But..... I just do not see it. Specially since I a 3/4 of the way to the Missouri.

 

You need to buy the dispersion upgrade, or else Iowa will be known to you as instead her more fitting name without it of Sh!towa.  You also need to remember that she doesn't actually possess 9 rifles. Only 6. The third is for use during the times your stern is to the enemy. 

 

Without the dispersion upgrade she is worse in every way that matters than the NC, accuracy, agility, protection, effective firepower. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
180
[-TXT-]
Members
549 posts
13,334 battles

dispersion upgrade

 

if you are talking about the APRM2 I have it.  Still feels worst then the NC with it 2.0 sigma. But that not the main issue. It long and not maneuverable. Eat citadels like candy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KNTAI]
Members
3,133 posts
8,754 battles

Dunno about you mate, but the Iowa/Missouri seem crazy accurate to me! I've landed citadels at 25km quite easily on this ship. I seem to struggle on the NC,on the other hand, but I feel like I'll be using the NC more in the future, too.

 

 http://i.imgur.com/Aa9v3W8.png

 http://i.imgur.com/Mizl5OV.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×