Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
bubbleboy264

Musashi should have replaced the Izumo

53 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

456
[BOYS]
Members
455 posts
8,072 battles

With the Musashi in the game now, there is even less of a reason to play the Izumo. It was already the worst tier 9 battleship, now it’s just completely irrelevant. The Musashi has massively better guns with actually usable firing angles, massively more health, much more armor, better concealment, much more resistance to HE spam, and just blows the poor Izumo clean out of the water. The only things the Izumo has going for it compared to the Musashi are better (but still terrible) AA, and better gun traverse rates. The Izumo is just a terrible ship that doesn’t even fit into the Japanese line to begin with.

In my opinion WG should have just replaced the Izumo with the Musashi in the regular tech tree. It makes sense with regard to line continuity and playstyle, and it’s actually a great ship, whereas the Izumo is this weird ugly abomination just thrown in as filler to make the line complete. 

When I unlocked and bought the Izumo I played about 4 games in it and couldn’t stand it, and immediatly sold it, eventually buying back the Amagi, a ship I love and have put my Yamamoto captain in. I have always wanted the Yamato, but I just can’t bear grinding through the Izumo to get it. However, if WG had decided to do the logical thing and just replace the Izumo with the Musashi, I would have started grinding for it in a heartbeat.

But wargaming instead decided to think with their wallet instead of overall game balance and line continuity, and made the Musashi a replacement for the Missouri. I have the mighty MO, and love her, and see the Musashi as a wasted cash grab. It should have replaced the Izumo, and the next tier 9 premium should have been something different, such as a cruiser or DD, instead of another battleship. Hell the Salem could have been reworked to fit as a tier 9 and would be more interesting and balanced. 

I know that wg has already made its choice on the Musashi and it isn’t going to change, but they could at least replace the Izumo with some kind of prototype Yamato, you can find plenty on shipbucket or something. Or they could just buff the Izumo massively, as it still needs it in my opinion. It just can’t hold a candle to the other tier 9 BBs, and the Musashi is the final nail in its coffin. It’s an ugly duckling that doesn’t fit with the Japanese line as a whole. Either replace her with a better ship or completely rework her and give her some serious love so it can at least be somewhat competitive. 

Edited by bubbleboy264
  • Cool 1
  • Meh 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,053
[SYN]
Members
16,027 posts
12,803 battles

WG could have replaced Izumo with Kii for that matter.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
456
[BOYS]
Members
455 posts
8,072 battles
Just now, MrDeaf said:

WG could have replaced Izumo with Kii for that matter.

Yeah, just anything but the Izumo would be better. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,860
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,947 battles

Just replace Izumo with one of the other preliminary 41cm-armed proto-Yamatos.

 

You know. One of the ones without a back-facing forward turret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
456
[BOYS]
Members
455 posts
8,072 battles
1 minute ago, AraAragami said:

Just replace Izumo with one of the other preliminary 41cm-armed proto-Yamatos.

 

You know. One of the ones without a back-facing forward turret.

I know, it’s ridiculous how WG still hasn’t done anything about this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,860
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,947 battles
3 minutes ago, bubbleboy264 said:

I know, it’s ridiculous how WG still hasn’t done anything about this...

Flip the C turret around to face forward. Suddenly Izumo is improved by 90%.

The "A" design here:

the_comparative_turret_layout_of_the_ijn

It really is that simple. They picked the "D" design instead of the "A" design.

 

My guess is they wanted the one that more closely imitated the "pyramid" layouts on the Myoko and early Furutaka cruisers, but that straight up doesn't work for battleships. It barely works for the cruisers. Izumo should have had an all-forward design like Nelson.

 

Even the cruisers ditched the back-facing forward turret with Mogami and up, going from the Pyramid layout to a Nelson-like all-forward layout. Pyramid is just a crappy gun layout.

Edited by AraAragami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,418
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
29,177 posts
15,765 battles

I actually wouldn't have minded if they had left the tier empty like in alpha and simply make the big leap from tier 8.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
456
[BOYS]
Members
455 posts
8,072 battles
1 minute ago, AraAragami said:

Flip the C turret around to face forward. Suddenly Izumo is improved by 90%.

The "A" design here:

the_comparative_turret_layout_of_the_ijn

It really is that simple. They picked the "D" design instead of the "A" design.

Yeah, any one of those would make much more sense. It’s design is just awkward. If it’s gonna be all front facing it should be like the Nelson’s layout. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
456
[BOYS]
Members
455 posts
8,072 battles

I also love it how Izumo’s model is nothing like the actual design, it’s been covered in a thread before how it’s just completely ahistorical, not to mention butt ugly and awkward 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,418
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
29,177 posts
15,765 battles
Just now, AraAragami said:

Flip the C turret around to face forward. Suddenly Izumo is improved by 90%.

The "A" design here:

the_comparative_turret_layout_of_the_ijn

It really is that simple. They picked the "D" design instead of the "A" design.

 

1 minute ago, bubbleboy264 said:

Yeah, any one of those would make much more sense. It’s design is just awkward. If it’s gonna be all front facing it should be like the Nelson’s layout. 

The BC proposal the Izumo is built on had the third turret facing the rear. It would be nice if we could lock the turrets to port or starboard. The design is only awkward because of the ahistorical angling, ships of that era fought with all of their guns and tried to engage at a range where their armor made them immune to the enemies fire while the enemy was not immune to theirs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,066 posts
23,609 battles
26 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

Just replace Izumo with one of the other preliminary 41cm-armed proto-Yamatos.

 

You know. One of the ones without a back-facing forward turret.

Yeah if it had an HMS Nelson style turret layout with all 9 facing forward then I think it would be a keeper. I have fun in Nelson not so much in Izumo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,053
[SYN]
Members
16,027 posts
12,803 battles
13 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

 

The BC proposal the Izumo is built on had the third turret facing the rear. It would be nice if we could lock the turrets to port or starboard. The design is only awkward because of the ahistorical angling, ships of that era fought with all of their guns and tried to engage at a range where their armor made them immune to the enemies fire while the enemy was not immune to theirs.

It's not ahistorical to angle the ship, so as to increase effective armor.

There was a think tank back in the day that simulated how Fuso and Yamashiro could be used to engage USN Standard BBs.

It involved angling as much as possible to deflect USN shells off the belt, while closing the distance to get into effective firing range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,359
[LEGIO]
Members
3,736 posts
10,874 battles
4 minutes ago, MrDeaf said:

It's not ahistorical to angle the ship, so as to increase effective armor.

There was a think tank back in the day that simulated how Fuso and Yamashiro could be used to engage USN Standard BBs.

It involved angling as much as possible to deflect USN shells off the belt, while closing the distance to get into effective firing range.

It's entirely ahistorical. You moved at an angle to complicate ranging the target. Not because an inch and a half of plating on the hull front is magically going to deflect incoming 14" shells with the momentum of freight train behind them.

Fuso and Yamashiro would be fare poorly in a shooting match with the 12-gun standards. No amount of trying to angle your hull would change that outcome.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,418
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
29,177 posts
15,765 battles
5 minutes ago, MrDeaf said:

It's not ahistorical to angle the ship, so as to increase effective armor.

There was a think tank back in the day that simulated how Fuso and Yamashiro could be used to engage USN Standard BBs.

It involved angling as much as possible to deflect USN shells off the belt, while closing the distance to get into effective firing range.

Actually it is, the worst situation for a ship was to have their T crossed and that is exactly what angling does.

That was theory and rather extreme theory at that and after the fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
483
[KRAB]
Members
949 posts
7,418 battles

Musashi as is would be FAR too strong as a tech tree ship. It would need 41cm guns at minimum to make it balanced in tier. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,424 posts
3,448 battles
1 hour ago, AraAragami said:

Just replace Izumo with one of the other preliminary 41cm-armed proto-Yamatos.

 

You know. One of the ones without a back-facing forward turret.

Yeah but see, that would make it not suck, and cause WG to lose money from people no longer just paying to free XP past it to get the Yamato.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,860
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,947 battles
25 minutes ago, goldeagle1123 said:

Yeah but see, that would make it not suck, and cause WG to lose money from people no longer just paying to free XP past it to get the Yamato.

(Like I did, because screw that thing)

 

Also for as long as I've had Prinz Eugen, the recent event added Deutschland and I can't help but like her. A lot. It's like a Castlevania protagonist tripped over Mad Max and got lost in a shipgirl game.

 

Spoiler

W9q1pGk.png

 

Edited by AraAragami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,424 posts
3,448 battles
7 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

(Like I did, because screw that thing)

 

Also for as long as I've had Prinz Eugen, the recent event added Deutschland and I can't help but like her. A lot. It's like a Castlevania protagonist tripped over Mad Max and got lost in a shipgirl game.

Eh, she wasn't intolerably bad. But certainly an unfun and frsutrating ship to play. Like the turret arrangement alone is awful, but was it really necessary to make it slow and clumsy, have no AA, massive detection, and have it's deck be vulnerable to 8" HE? With no real redeeming qualities?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
251
[RADAR]
Beta Testers
742 posts
7,187 battles

IT would have been total common sense to do so, and the player base actively requested it.


Which is exactly why WG chose not to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,728
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,538 posts
12,810 battles

Musashi should not be a t9, so no it should not have replaced the Izumo.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,860
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,947 battles

I've always said Musashi should be an alternate, paid-with-doubloons hull for Yamato with the special trait of changing her nameplate to Musashi, along with the different secondaries and such. This makes Musashi a tier 10 without technically being a tier 10 premium, and also means you'd have to have played a tier 10 ship to get it (because you need to own Yamato to equip the module).

 

But a nerfed downtiered T9 Yamato is what WG decided to do because they could charge more for it. So that's what we have to deal with and whining about it will solve nothing.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,744 posts
8,862 battles
1 hour ago, BrushWolf said:

Actually it is, the worst situation for a ship was to have their T crossed and that is exactly what angling does.

That was theory and rather extreme theory at that and after the fact.

You’re thinking about bow-tanking — That’s ahistorical. Angling was expected though, particularly closer to WWII. Most of the "fast battleships" had a majority of their guns forward, and had heavier armor on the front half of the ship because they were expected to approach at an angle. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,728
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,538 posts
12,810 battles

it wasnt planned that way to increase the armor effectiveness.  Let's not pretend that it was.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,110
[KSF]
-Members-
5,295 posts
9,201 battles
22 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

I've always said Musashi should be an alternate, paid-with-doubloons hull for Yamato with the special trait of changing her nameplate to Musashi, along with the different secondaries and such. This makes Musashi a tier 10 without technically being a tier 10 premium, and also means you'd have to have played a tier 10 ship to get it (because you need to own Yamato to equip the module).

 

But a nerfed downtiered T9 Yamato is what WG decided to do because they could charge more for it. So that's what we have to deal with and whining about it will solve nothing.

Yah, they could have just gone the Harekaze route and had separate hull options for the Yamato, the 2nd of which would have turned it into a Musashi.

As an aside, I kind of wish WG would do that with more sister ships.  I get that they don't want to overwhelm new players with multiple different names for every ship, but I do think it would be neat if some ships' names would change depending on the hull in use.  They don't have to do it for every ship of course, but as far as I'm concerned anything that adds more variety and customization is a good thing.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×