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

Think a Iowa/Montana dispersion buff is needed

16 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Testers
4 posts

the dispersion of the 2 ships main gun firing has been annoying me lately since the real thing was way better and should be buffed to reflect as such. This is after having played both Yamamoto and Montana/Iowa to compare myself, Yamamoto seems to have better dispersion. Although Dispersion is based on the fire control capabilities and Iowa and by extension Montana (had it been built) would have far outclassed Yamamoto, yet this is not reflected in-game and it bugs me.

My sources to give ample reason:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-ultimate-battleship-battle-japans-yamato-vs-americas-13737?page=0%2C1

http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

info provided is based off of a author who put way more time into researching this than me, and i found it to be a decent read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,637
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
10,858 posts

Well since we're talking buffs... I'd like the Belfast's radar buffed, would like torpedoes added to her as well. I'd like to see the Moskva's turning radius buffed and I think the Cleveland could use another couple clicks of range. 

I figure if they buff Montana cause of this thread, maybe they'll buff my ships too! One never knows. Good luck with the buff request. My Montana seems to be playing fine. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
444
[YAN]
Members
1,649 posts
8,051 battles

Sure, buff Montanas accuracy.

But only when you return her citadel to punishable levels in return.

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
183 posts
6,722 battles
25 minutes ago, Herr_Reitz said:

Well since we're talking buffs... I'd like the Belfast's radar buffed, would like torpedoes added to her as well. I'd like to see the Moskva's turning radius buffed and I think the Cleveland could use another couple clicks of range. 

I figure if they buff Montana cause of this thread, maybe they'll buff my ships too! One never knows. Good luck with the buff request. My Montana seems to be playing fine. 

Well I agree with you on the Cleveland, what they have done to it is a same. Why does the U.S. have to hide behind islands all the time and they feed you the (Well it's a different way to play ) bull. Ships are made to sail the seas, set her free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
749
[SPTR]
Members
20,147 posts
6,044 battles

Wow! A ship with 25% less guns and firepower, with a horrible citadel placement and anti-aircraft ability thus requiring her to play in a slightly more passive playstyle capitalizing on quality shots per salvo and with her accuracy one of her advertised selling points and only barely noticable especially in a combat situation is more accurate than my Montana? Impossible! Buff my Montana!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,004
[SPTR]
Members
26,577 posts
12,558 battles

For me they just need the AP shell penetration angles that the US cruisers has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
50 posts
1,832 battles

Yamato is balanced on her insta-pen guns and verticle armor. 

 

Montana is balanced on AA, speed, and decent but not overpowered stats in other departments. Take Artillery plotting room 2 equipment, and you will do just fine. It’s not bad sigma to start with.... if you really think it is, try German BBs.

Edited by alexbuildit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,311
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
10,760 posts
15,957 battles
2 hours ago, Magesghost said:

the dispersion of the 2 ships main gun firing has been annoying me lately since the real thing was way better

This game has NOTHING to do with reality, and those ships dispersion stats are just fine. Way, way better than in real life, LOL!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,514
[-K-]
Privateers, Members, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers, Supertester, WoWS Wiki Editor
5,856 posts
6,756 battles

Dispersion is based on the characteristics of the guns.  Accuracy is based on the characteristics of the FCS, and since the player is the FCS in game, you can't do too much about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
527
[MIA-P]
Members
2,174 posts
10,912 battles

Inside 16km, Montana is more accurate with the USN BB dispersion mod than Yamato with its inferior dispersion mod.
Dispersion.png.f0502775328a985abc6462b6f

Edited by thegamefilmguruman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,931
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
5,872 posts
8,927 battles
3 hours ago, Magesghost said:

the dispersion of the 2 ships main gun firing has been annoying me lately since the real thing was way better and should be buffed to reflect as such. This is after having played both Yamamoto and Montana/Iowa to compare myself, Yamamoto seems to have better dispersion. Although Dispersion is based on the fire control capabilities and Iowa and by extension Montana (had it been built) would have far outclassed Yamamoto, yet this is not reflected in-game and it bugs me.

My sources to give ample reason:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-ultimate-battleship-battle-japans-yamato-vs-americas-13737?page=0%2C1

http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

info provided is based off of a author who put way more time into researching this than me, and i found it to be a decent read.

^^^^
my reaction to this

Iowa and Montana are accurate enough, they dont need a buff

Edited by tcbaker777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
33 posts
1,367 battles

I highly disagree with the accuracy buff but nonetheless I do think the 16in guns on Iowa and Montana need a muzzle velocity (and by extension penetration) buff to even just slightly better reflect their real life counterparts (well Montana never existed but would've used the same guns as Iowa). In reality the guns fired the MK8 super heavy shells at impressive velocity and comparable penetration to the Yamato class' 18in guns do to their significantly higher velocity. When it comes down to it, it's a joke what they did to the USN 16 inchers and it really needs fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,795
Alpha Tester
7,113 posts
3,722 battles
On 8/6/2018 at 9:01 AM, Akeno017 said:

Sure, buff Montanas accuracy.

But only when you return her citadel to punishable levels in return.

Learn 2 aim.

Or stop posting on reddit and listening to this utterly destroyed meme.

The Montana is insanely easy to citadel, and only slightly more difficult to do so than the Yamato. You're not going to be able to delete one with 9 citadels from a single Yamato salvo anymore and pretend it's balanced despite having an incorrectly modeled citadel.

Go hug your wifu pillow in your basement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
210
[REVY]
Members
401 posts
5,048 battles
4 minutes ago, Madwolf05 said:

Learn 2 aim.

Or stop posting on reddit and listening to this utterly destroyed meme.

The Montana is insanely easy to citadel, and only slightly more difficult to do so than the Yamato. You're not going to be able to delete one with 9 citadels from a single Yamato salvo anymore and pretend it's balanced despite having an incorrectly modeled citadel.

Go hug your wifu pillow in your basement.

 

0653f57200852075863100533834ee1b17abe565_hq.jpg

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
30 posts
1,390 battles
On 8/6/2018 at 7:49 AM, Magesghost said:

the dispersion of the 2 ships main gun firing has been annoying me lately since the real thing was way better and should be buffed to reflect as such. This is after having played both Yamamoto and Montana/Iowa to compare myself, Yamamoto seems to have better dispersion. Although Dispersion is based on the fire control capabilities and Iowa and by extension Montana (had it been built) would have far outclassed Yamamoto, yet this is not reflected in-game and it bugs me.

My sources to give ample reason:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-ultimate-battleship-battle-japans-yamato-vs-americas-13737?page=0%2C1

http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

info provided is based off of a author who put way more time into researching this than me, and i found it to be a decent read.

The game historically lacks precise sea in the capacities that the battleships really had, in the game besides looking like cotton with gasoline for the explosive projectiles, they are easy to destroy with few torpedoes being boats built by sections to prevent complete floods in the boat, I think the bismack had 12 or 16 sections anti torpedo, if for example was penetrated by a torpedo this would be like in one of these sections preventing damage to the heart of the ship, only lose speed, and to sink it would also need bombardment and missile attacks, but here 2 or 4 torpedoes sink without fail, we must remember that the torpedoes also fail and broke when they hit the anti-torpedo ring, all battleships should have the radar consumable, is a boat command as well as the aircraft carrier, the only strategy that moves in the game is to hide, if at least people were not completely blind would be more effective to remove them from their hiding places or defend themselves from a battleship before the destroyers, in the game are completely blind battleships, are ships with radars more powerful than any other ship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×