Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
saagri

Citadel Buff to T9-T10 USN BB's

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

520
[-FBS-]
Members
2,646 posts
4,290 battles

Now that the changes have been made live I wanted to know how people feel about it and whether or not it makes much of a difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,284
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
29,917 posts
25,782 battles

Now that the changes have been made live I wanted to know how people feel about it and whether or not it makes much of a difference. 

 

Needed to happen long ago.

 

That said, the armor is still the same.  In essence it should be the same as if doing NC in a way.  Your armor may not be that great but your citadel is lower, which can be better for a short range fight, provided you aren't turning and showing your waterline to get citadeled.  It's just the days of 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 citadel strikes on something like Iowa & Missouri in one salvo are not going to be so easy to achieve anymore.

 

Anyways, this old thing should have never been allowed to regularly happen ingame:

 

HL8mYmB.jpg

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24
[-OF-]
Beta Testers
107 posts

 

Needed to happen long ago.

 

That said, the armor is still the same.  In essence it should be the same as if doing NC in a way.  Your armor may not be that great but your citadel is lower, which can be better for a short range fight, provided you aren't turning and showing your waterline to get citadeled.  It's just the days of 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 citadel strikes on something like Iowa & Missouri in one salvo are not going to be so easy to achieve anymore.

I don't think people realize how good the armor will be when the citadel is lowered. Imagine getting Yamato's main belt armor but with no citadel behind it. That's essentially what you will get with Montana. As for Iowa, it will basically be a tier 9 NC, and that is a great thing as I loved the NC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
554
[ONE38]
Members
3,781 posts
13,698 battles

Now that the changes have been made live I wanted to know how people feel about it and whether or not it makes much of a difference. 

 

Tomorrow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,595
[-KIA-]
Banned
9,382 posts
22,003 battles

I'll still be crushing moronic Iowa and Montana drivers in jousts.  They couldn't cit me in return before the citadel was lowered, and they won't afterwards; on the other hand, I've never relied on the citadel height to print those shiny black ribbons.

 

Now I'll just be adding Yamatos and Izumos to the target list more often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
520
[-FBS-]
Members
2,646 posts
4,290 battles

I don't think people realize how good the armor will be when the citadel is lowered. Imagine getting Yamato's main belt armor but with no citadel behind it. That's essentially what you will get with Montana. As for Iowa, it will basically be a tier 9 NC, and that is a great thing as I loved the NC. 

 

The problem is that the citadel roof armor is overmatched by BB guns, 
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38
[MIR]
Members
92 posts
12,677 battles

I played my Iowa for a few games yesterday, and it definitely seemed tankier, when properly angled, and I was taking hits causing light to moderate damage, that before the buff, would have been devastating.

 

That said though, you still don't want to show an enemy a full broadside in it, or try to knife fight with a German T8-10 BB, and you definitely want to exercise a lot of wisdom and caution, before you decide to take on a Yamato or Kurfurst solo.

 

If you're in a tier 10 game, and you want to pick a fight with an enemy Yamato, it's still best to do it in another Yamato or Kurfurst, instead of an Iowa or Montana.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,383 posts
4,457 battles

The ship is able to brawl more, but still takes citadels at medium/long range through the top of the citadel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,675 posts
3,056 battles

I'm very happy to see the change and hope the ships won't underperform anymore. I played my Iowa yesterday to see how it plays now and it seemed a better. It still has 12" of belt armor so going side-on is still stupid but I've noticed I'm not taking 10k+ damage hits from the front anymore, which is interesting. Bow-on the Iowa is pretty tanky but I noticed I would occasionally take a citadel from the front. I haven't seen that yet, so far at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
15 posts

If you're in a tier 10 game, and you want to pick a fight with an enemy Yamato, it's still best to do it in another Yamato or Kurfurst, instead of an Iowa or Montana.

 

I disagree with respects. Yamato is my favourite T10 BB dish. Granted she has guns and accuracy, her guns are effective only after 15KM. If the player makes that Yamato-101 mistake of pushing with the frontal assault team to within 16-17KM, she will be in trouble and wasted.  Irregardless of her 18" guns (which are slow), she cannot win in a brawl, nor in mid-range fight, against someone who got some semblance of experience and with the right intended ship. Her characteristics just isn't. Period. Side note for the Yamato-player : No matter what the team says and whine about the Yamato staying back , not supporting , etc - just ignore their insults and shoot from far.

 

I have killed Yamatos just in my T8 Tirp several times (bow-on). She is too easy if she makes that 101 mistake. I can only surmise that with the Montana, the Yamato-kills shall be even quicker and more exhilarating. Just close-in on Yamato, eliminate her key attribute : long-range effectiveness.

 

 

Now I'll just be adding Yamatos and Izumos to the target list more often.

 

Your list will grow for sure. After reading your Montana build, skill-sets, and play-style in other posts, Yamato is absolutely no threat against Montana (specifically yourself). Eat them yammies for afternoon tea !

 

With the lowered citadel, Montana players have become more aggressive which is a good thing and have really begun to understand/milk Montana for all it's true value/fit-for-purpose, which before quite a few Montana players didn't explore due to misconception / mis-perception of Montana being the weakest of the 3 (pffft.... it's the players who are weak - not the ships) .

 

Hope to play with you again (we have played before few times, same team coincidentally). 

Edited by hornchurch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
15 posts

The ship is able to brawl more, but still takes citadels at medium/long range through the top of the citadel.

 

It is a very reasonable, intentional trade-off. That said, gives an analytical Montana player to maximising Montana's battle-effectiveness - even further

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
116
[CS7]
Beta Testers
326 posts
6,238 battles

Stealthy Montana is hilarious now, it's been a long time coming I'll say that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
554
[ONE38]
Members
3,781 posts
13,698 battles

Last night, before she turned and ran away, I buffed some poor Iowa's citadel twice with my Alabama. :trollface:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
75
[AAA]
Members
169 posts
6,929 battles

The citadel lowering is great. Now, I don't have a panic attack every time I turn, and it made doing the last bit of the grind to the Montana easier. That said, the citadel is still easy to hit if you aim right, and can be done with fairly easy consistency if the target remains broadside, much like the NC and Alabama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
89 posts
12,327 battles

So annoying that this is the case in the game. US steel was of extremely good quality in the early 40's and the Iowa (and Montana had she been built) where extremely well amoured compared to about anything. The Japanese could not roll really thick solid steel like the US could so the Yamato had cemented steel which is of much lower quality against AP shells.  I understand the need to be balanced and lowering the citadel is helpful but still, they should be as strong at least as ships of the same tier.

 

In fact, in the 1990's the Soviets were on record saying that they had absolutely nothing in their arsenal aside from nukes that could even hope to penetrate an Iowa's armour. 

 

Alas those days are gone, along with the facilities that used to roll that massive steel.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,284
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
29,917 posts
25,782 battles
On 6/9/2017 at 5:09 PM, ImperialArmament said:

The citadel lowering is great. Now, I don't have a panic attack every time I turn, and it made doing the last bit of the grind to the Montana easier. That said, the citadel is still easy to hit if you aim right, and can be done with fairly easy consistency if the target remains broadside, much like the NC and Alabama.

Better safe than sorry even with the lowered citadels.  My last 2 matches I citadeled on the sides a Montana per game using Alabama.  But the difference was I wasn't getting those ridiculous 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 citadel strikes as what was happening to IX-X USN BBs when the cits were riding much higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
349 posts
5,412 battles

This might explain why I shot a nearly full broadside Monty in my Yammy and got nothing but shatters.  Ofc, I still have to suffer through the NC before reaching Iowa.  Mo has truly spoiled me with her glorious speed and guns.  And to be fair, even before the citadel buff, you could comfortably get all 3 turrets on target and receive little to no dmg from ap.  It's just that now it's harder to farm potatoes.  :Smile_sad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,393
[INTEL]
Members
13,459 posts
38,225 battles

Its definitely suits an aggressive, fluid playstyle now. Very much enjoying Monty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×