Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
shotgun2010

Montana obselete?

48 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
22 posts
786 battles

I've been comparing monty to conq, and conq seems better at everything. 

Conq has god-tiered stealth and HE, still reliable AP, and super heal

both ships have pretty much same armor, except conq has slightly weaker turret face armor

conq seems to outmatch monty in every aspect, so is montana even worth getting anymore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,127
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
5,490 posts
10,207 battles

LOL ah no. Montana is a great BB. No where near obsolete.

Conqueror is good too but if you want to play a BB like a BB Montana is a better option. IF you want to fade in and out and spam HE from the back Conqueror is a better choice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
411 posts

Sure is. God-tier AA, accurate 12-gun broadside, and great armor scheme to mitigate damage. Good luck with incoming Battleship AP in a Conq, you'll eat those shells like crazy. And no super heal can fix that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
394
[WOLF5]
Members
1,499 posts
2,069 battles

No, the MT isnt obsolete. It just requires a brain to play, unlike the conqueror.

That 12 gun AP salvo coupled with awesome AA and good concealment is a dangerous ship. You can swing games in one salvo, unlike the conq which needs time to burn things down. Also, fire damage is repairable, citadels aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
22 posts
786 battles
5 minutes ago, AJTP89 said:

No, the MT isnt obsolete. It just requires a brain to play, unlike the conqueror.

That 12 gun AP salvo coupled with awesome AA and good concealment is a dangerous ship. You can swing games in one salvo, unlike the conq which needs time to burn things down. Also, fire damage is repairable, citadels aren't.

conq's AP shells are no weaker than Montana's. it just has the extra choice of OP HE, which most ppl use as their main armament. 

this here is a demonstration on the AP capabilities of conq: 

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
284
[BLUMR]
Members
2,048 posts
6,986 battles
2 minutes ago, shotgun2010 said:

conq's AP shells are no weaker than Montana's. it just has the extra choice of OP HE, which most ppl use as their main armament. 

this here is a demonstration on the AP capabilities of conq: 

 

What? No conqs ap is weaker than montanas in terms of armor penetration. Conq gets a super nerfed fuse timer while monty is able to pen the hell out of most heavily armored targets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
170 posts
7,690 battles

We've gone over this about 20,000 times. After lowering the citadel the Montana does not massively handicap a skilled player. Power creep is a real issue in this game, but the nerfs to Conqueror have brought a level of parity between the ships that is acceptable to most players. It's also important to remember that the RU server has a hyper aggressive style of battleship play that allows the Montana's huge DPM to shine in brawls. If all the servers were like NA she would probably be a very different ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,552 posts
9,834 battles
30 minutes ago, AJTP89 said:

No, the MT isnt obsolete. It just requires a brain to play, unlike the conqueror.

 


So now you are insulting Conqueror players to try to make a senseless point?

Both ships have their weaknesses and strengths and completely different play styles. Conqueror isn't an easy ship to play. You can't just sit in one place or you get targeted, torped and bombed. You can't brawl in it or you will certainly lose. Once you are too close to the enemy you are doomed. There's no way to turn and run.  To do well in it you have to play mid range, keep front angled and constantly adjust to what your teammates are doing. 

Both ships have their plus and minuses. I've seen really bad Conqueror captains as well as MT captains. I've also see battles where both ships have great captains and the match seems very equal.

The stats show that Conqueror has around a 48% WR which disproves your theory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,145 posts
4,209 battles
2 hours ago, AdmiralThunder said:

LOL ah no. Montana is a great BB. No where near obsolete.

Conqueror is good too but if you want to play a BB like a BB Montana is a better option. IF you want to fade in and out and spam HE from the back Conqueror is a better choice. 

Same opinion,

 

I've had the Monty as my second X BB after Yammy...I used to prefer Iowa over Monty but recently realized how much I love the Monty.

 

She's honestly my favorite out of the X BBs. Like her more than Conqueror. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
842 posts
1 hour ago, STINKWEED_ said:


So now you are insulting Conqueror players to try to make a senseless point?

Both ships have their weaknesses and strengths and completely different play styles. Conqueror isn't an easy ship to play. You can't just sit in one place or you get targeted, torped and bombed. You can't brawl in it or you will certainly lose. Once you are too close to the enemy you are doomed. There's no way to turn and run.  To do well in it you have to play mid range, keep front angled and constantly adjust to what your teammates are doing. 

Both ships have their plus and minuses. I've seen really bad Conqueror captains as well as MT captains. I've also see battles where both ships have great captains and the match seems very equal.

The stats show that Conqueror has around a 48% WR which disproves your theory

No, his point was valid.  In order to do average in a Montana, you need to have a brain. In order to do average in a Conqueror, you don't need said brain.

The amount of damage-farming HE camper Conquerors is evidence of this, compared to the much smaller number of Montanas doing something similarly dumb.

That's not to say that Conqueror players ipso facto have no brain.  A infers B does not mean B infers A.  It's just that the lack of decent gameplay skill requirement for the Conq means there are a larger percentage of Conq plays without said skills than for a Montana (or a GKF). There's still a lot of potato Montana players out there, there's just MORE potato Conq players.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,552 posts
9,834 battles
2 hours ago, EAnybody said:

No, his point was valid.  In order to do average in a Montana, you need to have a brain. In order to do average in a Conqueror, you don't need said brain.

The amount of damage-farming HE camper Conquerors is evidence of this, compared to the much smaller number of Montanas doing something similarly dumb.

That's not to say that Conqueror players ipso facto have no brain.  A infers B does not mean B infers A.  It's just that the lack of decent gameplay skill requirement for the Conq means there are a larger percentage of Conq plays without said skills than for a Montana (or a GKF). There's still a lot of potato Montana players out there, there's just MORE potato Conq players.

Like I said, potato Conquerors die quickly before they could accumulate much damage so your logic doesn't me sense. On the other hand most Montanas that I have encountered make it through most of the battle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,623
[E-E]
[E-E]
Members
15,677 posts
14,045 battles
5 hours ago, JessieTheKitty said:

What? No conqs ap is weaker than montanas in terms of armor penetration. Conq gets a super nerfed fuse timer while monty is able to pen the hell out of most heavily armored targets

There is also the reality that almost every Conqueror player doesn't know what their "2" key does.

Conqueror HE is safe, easy to use.  It gets VERY comfortable because the Fire effects.  But Fire damage can be healed back.  It gets so comfortable just to keep HE loaded that many Conqueror players do not use AP when it would be the better choice.

 

There is only 1 BB that I'd blatantly round an island corner, show my ship's broadsides to it and eat all the shots willingly.

 

Conqueror.

 

Because I'll just eat a little bit of HE damage and some fires, then proceed to pummel Conqueror in short range.

 

The notion that Montana was made "obsolete" by Conqueror came about when the RN BB Line released, but it isn't true at all.  Traditional AP slinging Battleships have the capability to wipe out a ship in one salvo.  HE slinging BBs don't do that.  Montana has magnificent guns.  And lots of them.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
626 posts
1,630 battles
Just now, HazeGrayUnderway said:

There is also the reality that almost every Conqueror player doesn't know what their "2" key does.

Conqueror HE is safe, easy to use.  It gets VERY comfortable because the Fire effects.  But Fire damage can be healed back.  It gets so comfortable just to keep HE loaded that many Conqueror players do not use AP when it would be the better choice.

 

There is only 1 BB that I'd blatantly round an island corner, show my ship's broadsides to it and eat all the shots willingly.

 

Conqueror.

 

Because I'll just eat a little bit of HE damage and some fires, then proceed to pummel Conqueror in short range.

I don't know if they got to T10, it's likely they do know about that 2 key especially because they had to use the QE. What if they are using AP? Seems to me that you are gambling on other players choices going the way you want them too.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,623
[E-E]
[E-E]
Members
15,677 posts
14,045 battles
19 minutes ago, Aristotle83 said:

I don't know if they got to T10, it's likely they do know about that 2 key especially because they had to use the QE. What if they are using AP? Seems to me that you are gambling on other players choices going the way you want them too.  

Except it's been proven time and time again.  I said it already, the HE on Conq is a trap.  Easy to use and when you see the HE pens, damage, Fire effects, see the Fire damage you rack up in the summary page, it lures the player into keep using them.  A div mate of mine, a better player than me, admonishes me all the time for using AP *even occasionally* on Conqueror.  With the HE you don't worry about angling, bow on tactics, and all the normal stuff.  But again, that's the trap.  There are clearly times to use AP with her, but nobody ever does.  They settle for the safer damage dealing.

 

The Conqueror player in that second link?  I looked him up after that match.  He's a great Conqueror player, even logged over 550 matches in her.  Yet there he is, using HE on a point blank Montana that is showing a lot of sides.  It was obvious Montana was coming around.  There was plenty of time to prepare and switch to AP.  Yet there is he, full HE salvo at point blank.

 

Anyways, both ships are very effective ships but for vastly different reasons.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,127
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
5,490 posts
10,207 battles
6 hours ago, shotgun2010 said:

conq's AP shells are no weaker than Montana's. it just has the extra choice of OP HE, which most ppl use as their main armament. 

this here is a demonstration on the AP capabilities of conq: 

 

Yes, they are weaker. Not only do Montana's AP shells have a higher damage value (13500 v 13000), and higher fps (762m/s v 747m/s), which make them better but they have a longer fuse so they are better at penetrating into the citadel of an enemy BB as the other poster told you. Montana's guns are leaps and bounds more accurate as well which means more shells on target too. It doesn't mean the AP is garbage on Conqueror or anything but it is not as good as Montana's. 

I have every T10 BB in the game and Montana's guns are right up there just behind Yamato and Republique for hard hitting and only behind Yamato for accuracy. Conqueror's AP is good but it is not as good as Montana by any stretch or measure. 

You have only played to Colorado and you have no BRN BB experience. You should go on the PTS and try the ships yourself and you will see for yourself. And, FWIW, that video in no way validates your point. It merely shows Conqueror has useable AP. It doesn't show it to be the equal of or superior to Montana's. It is also one of the best WOWS players out there playing the ship too. The average player should not expect the same results.

No offense or anything intended but you are wrong on this.

Edited by AdmiralThunder
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,623
[E-E]
[E-E]
Members
15,677 posts
14,045 battles
6 hours ago, Lonewolfpj said:

Americano steel is the best steel

American Piercing Shells to deliver Freedom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
842 posts
7 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

American Piercing Shells to deliver Freedom

I prefer to think of them as facilitating an introduction to Davey Jones' Locker.

Either that or providing much-needed air conditioning to ships in desperate need of a few well-placed new "portholes".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
87
[-BSS-]
Members
386 posts
5,966 battles

Getting through the RN BB line to attain the conqueror mashes most of the potatoes, I’d offer that there are likely fewer RN BB potatoes than other nations 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,461
[AXANR]
Members
3,361 posts
16,547 battles
On 4/14/2018 at 7:05 AM, Visidious said:

Getting through the RN BB line to attain the conqueror mashes most of the potatoes, I’d offer that there are likely fewer RN BB potatoes than other nations 

You underestimate the number of potatoes that used free-XP to get Conqueror after hearing people say 'oh, she's so OP'. And it's been out for almost a year, so even potatoes have had time to get there. There are a LOT of potatoes playing Conqueror now. 

Honestly, I appreciate the potatoes playing Conqueror. People are even more likely to show their broadside to my Conqueror now because they expect me to only use HE. But if I saw it coming and had time to load AP, I make them pay for that assumption. Potatoes in Conqueror are conditioning my prey to show me their citadels. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
22 posts
786 battles
On ‎4‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 2:40 PM, AdmiralThunder said:

Yes, they are weaker. Not only do Montana's AP shells have a higher damage value (13500 v 13000), and higher fps (762m/s v 747m/s), which make them better but they have a longer fuse so they are better at penetrating into the citadel of an enemy BB as the other poster told you. Montana's guns are leaps and bounds more accurate as well which means more shells on target too. It doesn't mean the AP is garbage on Conqueror or anything but it is not as good as Montana's. 

I have every T10 BB in the game and Montana's guns are right up there just behind Yamato and Republique for hard hitting and only behind Yamato for accuracy. Conqueror's AP is good but it is not as good as Montana by any stretch or measure. 

You have only played to Colorado and you have no BRN BB experience. You should go on the PTS and try the ships yourself and you will see for yourself. And, FWIW, that video in no way validates your point. It merely shows Conqueror has useable AP. It doesn't show it to be the equal of or superior to Montana's. It is also one of the best WOWS players out there playing the ship too. The average player should not expect the same results.

No offense or anything intended but you are wrong on this.

conq has greater penetration values than montana at range

https://mustanghx.github.io/ship_ap_calculator/

yes, conq's sigma is 0.1 lower, but its still very accurate

I did try both ships on the test server, and for some reason I liked the montana more, which was a surprise...  on paper conq has all the advantages

Edited by shotgun2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,623
[E-E]
[E-E]
Members
15,677 posts
14,045 battles
43 minutes ago, shotgun2010 said:

conq has greater penetration values than montana at range

https://mustanghx.github.io/ship_ap_calculator/

yes, conq's sigma is 0.1 lower, but its still very accurate

I did try both ships on the test server, and for some reason I liked the montana more, which was a surprise...  on paper conq has all the advantages

To a degree.

 

You're forgetting that WG made Tech Tree RN BBs have short fuses.  This makes the AP very good in dealing with Cruisers, but against heavy armor, you're less likely to get those big citadel hits.  You're more relying on penetrations, i.e. upper hull, lower superstructure AP salvos.

 

Montana's traditional AP will get you overpens, but it also gets you those crazy multi-citadel hits... The reason why you grinded up a BB line to begin with :Smile_glasses:

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,127
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
5,490 posts
10,207 battles
12 hours ago, shotgun2010 said:

conq has greater penetration values than montana at range

https://mustanghx.github.io/ship_ap_calculator/

yes, conq's sigma is 0.1 lower, but its still very accurate

I did try both ships on the test server, and for some reason I liked the montana more, which was a surprise...  on paper conq has all the advantages

Don't forget to factor in the shorter fuse time of the BRN AP Conqueror uses.  As HG said, against Cruisers it will get fewer overpens than Montana but vs BB's Montana will get more big hits. Montana's AP just flat out hits harder. Sometimes you have to go for actual experience playing and throw stats out the window because on paper doesn't always play out in game. Conqueror's AP is very good but Montana's is excellent.

Sigma difference may only be 0.1 lower (1.8 Conqueror vs 1.9 Montana) but the dispersion is significantly worse on Conqueror because the USN high tier BB's have access to APRM2 which shaves 11% off the dispersion. Montana is a LOT more accurate. You can shoot a salvo at decent range w/ Montana and watch as it drops down tightly clustered in a little ball to obliterate the target whereas Conqueror's salvos generally are spread out quite a bit. It's is accurate enough but Montana is a lot more accurate when actually playing and shooting.

  • Conqueror = 24.3km max range w/ 303m dispersion
  • Montana = 23.6 max range w/ 264m dispersion (w/ APRM2)

So only .7km less range but a 39m advantage in dispersion. Couple that with an improved sigma and  Montana is able to put more shells on target that have a higher damage value.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,623
[E-E]
[E-E]
Members
15,677 posts
14,045 battles

In the heat of the competition for Clan Battles, Montana was the choice for Tier X Battleships.  Not bad for an "obsolete" Battleship, right?

5eb6dc58-47e8-11e8-8a57-d89d6715223c.jpg

Source.

The ship I am surprised as seeing as the most popular is Des Moines, I figured Hindenburg would be the Cruiser to lead that popularity department.

On 4/23/2018 at 6:49 AM, AdmiralThunder said:

Don't forget to factor in the shorter fuse time of the BRN AP Conqueror uses.  As HG said, against Cruisers it will get fewer overpens than Montana but vs BB's Montana will get more big hits. Montana's AP just flat out hits harder. Sometimes you have to go for actual experience playing and throw stats out the window because on paper doesn't always play out in game. Conqueror's AP is very good but Montana's is excellent.

Sigma difference may only be 0.1 lower (1.8 Conqueror vs 1.9 Montana) but the dispersion is significantly worse on Conqueror because the USN high tier BB's have access to APRM2 which shaves 11% off the dispersion. Montana is a LOT more accurate. You can shoot a salvo at decent range w/ Montana and watch as it drops down tightly clustered in a little ball to obliterate the target whereas Conqueror's salvos generally are spread out quite a bit. It's is accurate enough but Montana is a lot more accurate when actually playing and shooting.

  • Conqueror = 24.3km max range w/ 303m dispersion
  • Montana = 23.6 max range w/ 264m dispersion (w/ APRM2)

So only .7km less range but a 39m advantage in dispersion. Couple that with an improved sigma and  Montana is able to put more shells on target that have a higher damage value.


Conqueror's dispersion is annoying.

I was one of the Day 1 adopters of Conqueror when the line released.  I knew what I wanted to build for.

ASM1 for dispersion buff, on top of Stealth - Survival Build.

 

Very effective in that format.  But I like to change things up on my ships and I decided to try an AA Build.  Conqueror has the foundation for a good AA Build, I recall people saying it would be just as good as Montana's.

 

So I did adopt the AA Build, including of course dropping ASM1 for the AAGM2 upgrade to buff AA range.  The AA is indeed very nice but the dispersion is maddening for the main battery.  302m dispersion for 24.25km is pretty awful.  The long range salvos that made people mad at me were harder to come by.

 

On the flip side, my AA-Stealth Build Montana has plane-chopping ability while still mounting BOTH AAGM2 for AA range buff as well as APRM2 for the 11% dispersion buff to the guns.  Tier IX-X USN BBs are the only ones that can adopt upgrades like SBM2 and AAGM2 and not have to give up their dispersion upgrade.

 

And if you think having good AA is irrelevant, then I invite you to read this thread.  You got guys running around, screaming about a carrier, while some guys like me are sailing around in CV matches like it was a visit to the park on a warm, sunny day, with green grass, golden retrievers playing, kittens frolicking in the field.  High Tier USN BBs incorporate great AA easily into their builds.  Montana is such an example.  The feeling of reassurance in a CV match is great.  Best of all?  Again, Montana still keeps that APRM2 dispersion upgrade despite still having an AA Build.

 

Obsolete my a$$.

 

So after my AA experiment on Conqueror, I got fed up with the dispersion and went back to my ASM1, Stealth-Survival Build.  I wanted good AA but I had to settle for this to make the guns consistent.  The AA in this build is very mediocre at best, I don't think even a Tier VIII CV would be scared of Conq's AA.  But that's a build concession I made and I will deal with it.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30
[TSPC]
Members
173 posts
6,271 battles

C304.thumb.PNG.542bd34cdb19975bacd24a2fa334f045.PNG

btw, Conqueror 419's have comparable penetration to Montana 406's - with better pen at long ranges]

[457's are much better - unsurprisingly - but also the least used]

Link to source

https://mustanghx.github.io/ship_ap_calculator/

- the poor AP performance that is being observed is likely a combination of the Conqueror having not as good accuracy and a shorter fuse time which may cause shells to detonate prematurely as a result of torpedo belts and or layered / spaced armor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×