Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Akeno017

Musashi, I'm ready and waiting.

66 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,415
[REVY]
Members
9,753 posts
7,317 battles
5 hours ago, Magic_Fighting_Tuna said:

Well if you want to go all technical on this the invasion of Italy was to drive the Germans out as by that point Italy's armed forces had already been depleted in Africa and the remaining Italian forces were wiped out by the Germans beforehand when they learned of the Italians intentions to surrender. So you didn't see any Italian uniforms because they were either dead and any possible survivors were probably routed or forced into hiding and given the movie was only covering the American landing its quite possible they missed any survivors if any existed. With the Dunkirk movie its was focused around the beaches as the majority of the remaining French forces were further in land maintaining the blockade to hold the Germans back which you see and learn in the beginning of the movie. Now back to original quote, its valid as far as I'm concerned because the majority of man kinds greatest achievements worth remembering were influenced by individuals(entities) that are no longer around to see it. People tend to have a curiosity about the un-known and history's losers are just that, because their no longer around you really need to dig and slough for information or clues to understanding them, where as with histories winners all you need to do is find a book at a library or google search it.

I didn't see any German uniforms when Patton was invading Sicily either.  Most people remember Julius Caesar because he won.  People generally don't remember Lucius Tarquinius Superbus cause he lost.

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,415
[REVY]
Members
9,753 posts
7,317 battles
Just now, Magic_Fighting_Tuna said:

Then it wasn't an invasion, it was an occupation :cap_haloween:

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
824 posts
4,173 battles
5 minutes ago, Sventex said:

giphy.gif

My logic is so flawed its become flawless. either that the movie was a metaphor for America's greatest threat... OTHER AMERICANS!!!

Edited by Magic_Fighting_Tuna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
38 posts
On 12/14/2017 at 6:04 PM, AlcatrazNC said:

Prepare for another IJN disappointement.

 

After Kii and Ashitaka I really think WG actually hates making IJN premium . 

Exactly! I fell for the Kii and will be waiting for the reviews before even thinking about the Musashi. I am honestly still trying to figure out the play style for the Yamato. My initial thoughts are that it is substandard when compared to the GK or Montana. 

Edited by alphainfinity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17,976
[WOLF5]
Members
39,352 posts
31,553 battles
On 12/15/2017 at 4:25 AM, Cptlighthawk said:

Yes but T9 has the distinct advantage of getting to play against T7's as well. Getting to unleash 460mm salvo's against T7's, the memes will be glorious!

Also...... your battles...... ITS OVER 9000!!!!!!!! But honestly........ wow....... that's a lot of battles played.....

It's not an advantage considering Tier IX sees Tier X most of the time.  The simple fact is the Nerfed Yamato-class Sister will be seeing her older, unnerfed sister all the time.  Now, don't get me wrong, as a collector I will get Musashi (I have Missouri, Nelson FreeXP ships also).  But Yamato is still simply better and will get to "club" her nerfed younger sister.

 

Also there's guys with more matches and even better than I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,415
[REVY]
Members
9,753 posts
7,317 battles
58 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

Vercingetorix is all but passed into oblivion. The Musashi was the losers of the losers, somehow even less ineffectual then her sister ship Yamato and only venerated by Weebs and Weeb accessories.

At the very least, Musashi entered the record books for being among the largest Battleships ever built and mounting the largest Battleship gun.  Just like how the furthest humans have gotten from Earth with manned spaceflight was an accident, which happened during Apollo 13.  Failures can set records too.

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,143
[ARS]
Beta Testers
8,613 posts
10,430 battles

With the stats as shown, I don't see how Musashi will hold a candle to Missouri at Tier IX.  Sure, she has a lot of health, but she's slow, her armor is mediocre, she has inaccurate guns with a slower rate of fire and woe betide you if you end up in a game with CVs, Kongo at Tier V has better AA if I recall.

 

Musashi is a gimped Yamato, which is one of the weakest, if not weakest, Tier X BBs and Missouri is a buffed Iowa, one of the best Tier IX BBs.

 

While I am holding off on deciding between the two, I can't see Musashi competing.

 

I just wish I could remove the idiot cook from the Missouri.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,415
[REVY]
Members
9,753 posts
7,317 battles
8 hours ago, _RC1138 said:

So she's the fattest gal at the dance. Hardly something worthy of mention. Notice it isn't the *biggest* SSN's that are the most dangerous...

And that's *far* from the part of Apollo 13 that people remember.

I get jingoism, I can fall into it too with the Royal Navy, but betting on two of the most ineffectual BB's in history (with the Iowa's in a close second) is a waste of good emotions.

Bet on a good horse like the Scharnhorst class, Queen Liz class, hell even the Kongo's did more than the Iowa's and Yamato's combined (insofar as you know, being a surface combatant is concerned).

The problem with Naval Admirals is that they get it in their head that their ships are too valuable to lose.  So they never get used when they are supposed to until it's too late.  We even saw this in the Falklands war, where the Argentina participated in the invasion of the islands, but didn't bother leaving port when Royal Navy ships were on scene. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
949 posts
4,357 battles
7 hours ago, Sventex said:

The problem with Naval Admirals is that they get it in their head that their ships are too valuable to lose.  So they never get used when they are supposed to until it's too late.  We even saw this in the Falklands war, where the Argentina participated in the invasion of the islands, but didn't bother leaving port when Royal Navy ships were on scene. 

No, you look at this wrong. The problem is their careers are too valuable to lose and in a typical pyramid organization there are always 10-20 people who can and want to replace you. Losing a ship is like a store manger losing money. it does not take much for you to be out of job, and if you got 20-30 years invested  , you get awfully risk adverse and it is probable why you got that high up in the first place.

 

Reading about it , Even these ship crashes the USN has had in the Pacific has already costs some admirals their job , and they are above the captains on these boats (who also lost their jobs too). Granted there are serious structural training issues involved so some admirals do need to lose their jobs, more than that will.

Edited by Strachwitz666

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,415
[REVY]
Members
9,753 posts
7,317 battles
26 minutes ago, Strachwitz666 said:

No, you look at this wrong. The problem is their careers are too valuable to lose and in a typical pyramid organization there are always 10-20 people who can and want to replace you. Losing a ship is like a store manger losing money. it does not take much for you to be out of job, and if you got 20-30 years invested  , you get awfully risk adverse and it is probable why you got that high up in the first place.

Losing the war is also terrible for your career.  To be honest, I understand it, I've very risk adverse as well.  It's just a comic paradox that the best capital ships with all their awesome power often end up as port queens, because their too valuable to lose.

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,589 posts
8,799 battles
On 12/14/2017 at 6:46 PM, _Dracarys said:

wasnt the musashi supposed to come out before end of 2017? how come it's still not announced!

Because WG thinks it's not ready yet.

 

Would you prefer they rushed it out half baked a la Graf Zep, or released it when it was actually done?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,415
[REVY]
Members
9,753 posts
7,317 battles
1 hour ago, _RC1138 said:

Not true of the Kongos, which were used to a truly staggering degree. Nor the North Carolina Class, which saw more surface actions combined than any other USN BB. Or Warspite, which fought in almost half of all Post-Dreadnought BB vs. BB actions. Hell the Fuso's got committed to combat more times than the Yamato and Musashi's, or the Iowas. It's really just people latched on to those two classes like barnacles, but never considered that their 'favorites' were basically giant pieces of junk. And I mean that on all levels. Not just how (they weren't) used, but also a Ship Builder (nautical engineer) there are some *glaring* issues with both the Yamato and Iowas that make them sub-par ships from a pure engineering standpoint; the Yamatos failed to achieve their potential design speed due to being grossly under-powered. The Iowas were a maintenance nightmare and grossly overweight for their capabilities. The Yamatos were potentially the most stiff BB's ever put to sea, with a Metacentric height somewhere (sources differ but all are greater than) around 9.5 to *10* Feet. I've seen it quoted as closer to 12 feet. This is *ridiculous* for a ship that size (and underpowered) and would have made her UNBELIEVABLY uncomfortable and inaccurate, as the vibrations picked up would have thrown her aim and likewise a righting arm of that degree would have made her both heel overly and reduce her stability as a gun platform to a degree she would be more or less worthless as a BB. Conversely the Iowa's GM was WAY too low. It's usually cited at the 6.8 to 7.2 feet. That means it's guns would have been swaying, given her freeboard in an arc ~20 feet long. That could be the difference between hitting a target and going under/over by ~700 yards. And that low GM would have made her a [edited] to handle in high seas.

That's the problem with both these classes: they were transition models. Ships created combining old, solid ideas, in an attempt to reach the next level. As such, basic shipbuilding concepts were abandoned.

When you look at say the North Carolina Class, with a GM of 8.5", which is pretty perfect. were notably VERY stable vessels, even in the worst seas. Why is this? Luck of the draw? No. Because part of her design process allowed for optimization of design. They clearly, at some point, said, "Hey, this has to be a solid gun platform, better make sure it has an optimized GM for it's Tonnage, beam, and LWL." That was clearly not done for the Iowa's, and if it was done for the Yamato's then their engineers were morons, as a professional assessment, as they would have been overly stiff under all conditions and would be very concerned about them taking turns at 100% power (likely to heel hard and stay heeled, and potentially capsize). The USN and RN *usually* liked to optimize GM; the USN did it for all the Standard Types (which is why, except for the Colorados,  they were notably all VERY stable gun platforms (they deviated from the norm with the Colorados and concentrated a large amount of armor WAY too high in the ship) and the RN did it for all classes ending with the R class, with the QE's taking advantage of lower AWM to ensure an optimized GM. 

In short, the Iowa's were poorly designed as ships and are loved because they were last, and the Yamatos were poorly designed and are loved because they were last/fat. But people that lionize them out themselves as not understanding much about the realities of ship design and show it's just jingoism, not logic or sense, motivating their over-emotional attachment to these overweight, oversized, and ultimately proven, worthless piles of crap.

The Iowa’s were the fastest Battleships ever built, which is why I respect them.  Not out of Jingoism, but because they broke a record with their design.  I even respect the Shinano because she was the biggest CV ever built for the time, despite being unfinished and going down in embarrassment.  Heck, I even respect the Titanic for similar reasons, The Olympic even more for surviving, sinking a U-Boat becoming the largest commercial ship 3 separate times (albeit for tragic reasons).

 

It’s not because these where the finest at sea, it was because they the best.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
949 posts
4,357 battles
1 hour ago, Sventex said:

Losing the war is also terrible for your career.  To be honest, I understand it, I've very risk adverse as well.  It's just a comic paradox that the best capital ships with all their awesome power often end up as port queens, because their too valuable to lose.

One person does not change the outcome of a war. So to take it to that level means nothing matters at the level we are talking about. Besides "winning a war" is very often more hazardous to a military career than lose one, as nations downsize there huge militaries required to win a war, a losing force will want to get bigger/or rebuild to win the next time. Surely 100's of admirals of the USN lost their jobs at the end of WWII , they simply were not required , no fault of their own competency or for that matter incompetency.

 

The "port queen" aspects of the Yamato class or really any "heavy" unit  is that they are so expensive to run,  not that they were too valuable to lose. No-one can look into the future, so to put such a unit at sea, is going to cost a lot  even if there is no battle, beside secondary costs of wearing out the equipment or a breakdown , requiring spare parts and overhauls, which make take a unit out when it is really needed.  

As to the Yamato, she simply was too big for the Japanese to afford, particularly because of the fuel cost (which the Japanese had very little in stock or continuing  supply.  People don't realize most days of wars , nothing happens , battles are few  but a ship has to "run" every day which means fuel and maintenance, also the numerous false alarms and higher readiness ( like going at higher speeds because of say a possible  submarine threat or to get to a point of action eats tons of fuel and equipment  operating hours compared to even lower steady  cruising speeds.

Then there is the point again of "heavy units" they are often "new " often to the level of  "experimental " so things are going to break at a higher rate than more common  tried and tested equipment.  And that breakage and maintenance by defualt keeps them in port or in the rear  a lot. The Yamato being a new heavy unit caught it both ways. Readiness issues and prohibitively high fuel costs. Plus  specialization which means with a heavy unit most days it is not useful and could be a huge detriment op costs , (besides possibly losing the piece) and you just can't put it out in the field and wait to see if opportunity presents itself.  Yamato was kinda like the German 800mm Gustave cannon,  but the Yamto had a big fuel cost as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,662
[CALM]
Beta Testers
6,838 posts
6,088 battles

Musashi isn't worth it until they restore the reload to 30s, sigma to 2.0 at least, and just leave the only benefit from going down a tier being a buffed rudder shift (without even bothering to change the turning radius), all in exchange for T6.5 level AA and secondaries (and TDS; I think that was nerfed too, for no real reason). She still will have 72s traverse, most people will be taking the traverse buff module which already adds about 2s to the reload (37s is even worse, and nearly 2 minutes to turn the turrets if the RoF module is taken instead is just as bad), and she'll be a punching bag anyway for almost any ship due to her high citadel and far fewer AA/secondary guns absorbing some of the damage sent her way.

 

She could keep the 1.8 or only buffed to 1.9 sigma if they gave her her full early CBT or CBT-historical maneuverability back in exchange, which really only benefits proactive players who actually attempt to evade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,238 posts
11,474 battles
On ‎17‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 6:51 PM, YamatoA150 said:

Musashi isn't worth it until they restore the reload to 30s, sigma to 2.0 at least, and just leave the only benefit from going down a tier being a buffed rudder shift (without even bothering to change the turning radius), all in exchange for T6.5 level AA and secondaries (and TDS; I think that was nerfed too, for no real reason). She still will have 72s traverse, most people will be taking the traverse buff module which already adds about 2s to the reload (37s is even worse, and nearly 2 minutes to turn the turrets if the RoF module is taken instead is just as bad), and she'll be a punching bag anyway for almost any ship due to her high citadel and far fewer AA/secondary guns absorbing some of the damage sent her way.

 

She could keep the 1.8 or only buffed to 1.9 sigma if they gave her her full early CBT or CBT-historical maneuverability back in exchange, which really only benefits proactive players who actually attempt to evade.

Musashi is worthwhile, just because shes Musashi, and that's the sole reason I need.

Giving her both the reload and yamato sigma would potentially made Musashi brokenly overpowered, I've played against faildivved nagatos and colorados enough to know what a Yamato class can do to T7 ships, and T8-9 ships we already know.

Her TDS is actually superior, by 2% ( 53 vs 55 ) and gains 100 health, which probably lies in that Musashi took more torpedo/bombs than Yamato ( albeit due to Yamato being flooded on oneside to promote capsiding )

72s Traverse is fine, I actually run my Yamato with not only reload mod, which increases turn time but also without EM.

I do agree, that her Citadel is a notable weakness on her, however its currently the exact same as Yamatos, and that is proven sturdy in mid-long range vs. her T10 brethren while weak up close, and any Yamato worth their salt will have sent 460mm type 91s to any ship that tries to close on her.

I do think that her auxiliary armaments are seemingly lacklustre, but secondary armaments in this game are but 98% pure soft stats, and can easily be adjusted if need be.

Right now, I believe Musashi would be underperforming compared to the Missouri or FDG however she is also not even out of supertest yet, I believe this can be solved by 2 ways, of which is either changing the reload to match Yamato to offset her lesser accuracy, or let her retain the 2.1 Sigma, but keep the reload meaning that you fire less salvos but they hit far more harder.

The manoeuvrability buff you suggest sounds hilarious, but I don't think it solves any issues besides seeing Musashi act like she would have during 1940, and with the scale of ships in the game being wrong I don't think it could fully satisfy that desire either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×