Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
AbyssAngkor

Proposal: Tier 10 Musashi

53 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

86
[PT8TO]
[PT8TO]
Members
160 posts
12,544 battles

With Salem and Stalingrad in the game, I believe it's finally time for a tier 10 Musashi in its 1944 configuration. Here are 3 reasons to consider:

1. Currently, with the inclusion of Yamato's unique mod, the two battleships share identical roles, with Yamato showing more consistent gun performance. Musashi has lagged behind Yamato in terms of accuracy and did not receive the recent turret traverse buff given to the Yamato. Moving Musashi to tier 10 would justify any buffs to its main batteries. I propose increasing Musashi turret traverse to 3° per second to match Yamato and increasing her sigma to 1.9 for better consistency.

2. The IJN battleship line lacks a true secondary-capable BB competitive with German and French lines. The exception is Yamato herself, but she is not optimal for this role for a number of obvious reasons. Musashi, given her 1944 outfit, would fill this role. Of course, changes would have be made to make Musashi a tanky brawler. I propose that she receive a repair party that can recover 33% of citadel damage and 100% torpedo alpha damage. Overall heal amount is unchanged. Of course, her wing 155mm triple mounts would be replaced by 6 127 dual mounts, matching that of Yamato.

3. Many of us have wished for the return of USS Missouri as a FXP ship. Moving Musashi to tier 10 as a brawler would free up the previously occupied tier 9 niche. If Missouri was removed for another reason, then we can still bring in New Jersey as a FXP ship with a different comsumable loadout and credit earning.

Happy to read suggestions and comments.

Edit: The amount of hate this thread gathered is too much. This was not my intention. We all have different experiences playing the game our own way. Maybe you don't agree with my proposals, maybe you do. I just hope that people look objectively before starting an argument based on the first 3 words you see.

Edited by AbyssAngkor
  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
404
[WOLF5]
Members
1,538 posts
2,143 battles

So Yamato with the OP heal she had originally and was taken away for balance reasons? How about no.

The Yammy is a sniper, that's what the lolpen and high sigma are for. It doesn't brawl well, that's it weakness. If you make it able to brawl you don't have many weaknesses. Also, more problematic than the turret traverse is the high, oddly shaped citadel. That is what would really have to change for a secondary Yammy to be viable. But again, that would make it OP.

If you want a brawler for the IJN, use an Izumo variant. But not something with 18.1in guns.

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,710
[HINON]
Modder, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,498 posts
3,751 battles

So... You want a second Yamato, but worse. I do not understand.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,421
[DAKI]
[DAKI]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
12,538 posts
4,419 battles

If I want to play a tier 10 Yamato, then I would play the Yamato. Moving Musashi up a tier is pointless. 

The 1944 refit made Musashi basically the same in secondary and AA armament. It would be little better or worse than Yamato.

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
86
[PT8TO]
[PT8TO]
Members
160 posts
12,544 battles

Clearly, reading is hard.

15 minutes ago, AJTP89 said:

So Yamato with the OP heal she had originally and was taken away for balance reasons? How about no.

33% heal to citadel damage, 100% to torpedo damage. Overall amount per heal is unchanged (heals the same amount as current version).

9 minutes ago, Super_Dreadnought said:

The 1944 refit made Musashi basically the same in secondary and AA armament. It would be little better or worse than Yamato.

1944 Musashi would lack Yamato's dispersion mod and have a lower sigma. She will not fill Yamato's sniper role. She compensates this with a better heal, but only for citadel and torpedo damage. This encourages Musashi drivers to move closer to fully utilize the secondary batteries.

 

20 minutes ago, Doomlock said:

So... You want a second Yamato, but worse. I do not understand

Yes, but more tuned for pushing and CQC than Yamato, whose specialty is sniping.

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,123
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,974 posts
7,530 battles

There's zero need to move Musashi to T10. You want her to be worse than Yamato? Good, she already is. problem solved.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
86
[PT8TO]
[PT8TO]
Members
160 posts
12,544 battles
29 minutes ago, Super_Dreadnought said:

If I want to play a tier 10 Yamato, then I would play the Yamato. Moving Musashi up a tier is pointless.

So why have the Warspite, Tirpitz, Massachusetts, and every premium ship ever?

I'm suggesting a high tier IJN BB tuned for secondaries. Yamato does not fill this role in the current configuration.

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
86
[PT8TO]
[PT8TO]
Members
160 posts
12,544 battles
4 minutes ago, Th3KrimzonD3mon said:

There's zero need to move Musashi to T10. You want her to be worse than Yamato? Good, she already is. problem solved.

1urgjs.jpg

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
387
[INTEL]
Members
802 posts
8,309 battles

Musashi already is a T10. She just benefits from an occasional T9 match. You wanna brawl with Musashi, just push when you should rather than continuing to snipe at 20km. 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,367
[SYN]
Members
4,548 posts
11,437 battles

Because there is nothing redundant at all about having a "1944 config Musashi" sharing the same tier as the Yamato that's there now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
151
[ENDVR]
Members
423 posts
5,333 battles

Ya know... I remember seeing several comments about people being overfixated on secondary focused battleships.  At the time I was having a blast messing around with my hybrid Republique and I scoffed.

But watching people try to make versions of high tier battleships into ‘tanky secondary brawlers’ all over the place is starting to get me to agree that its getting a bit much.

There doesn’t need to be secondary-focused sister ships all over the place.  

Edited by SmokeHenge
Phonetyping

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,806
[SALVO]
Members
17,089 posts
17,754 battles

I'd much rather see the IJN "Number 13" class battleship added to the game, probably as a tier 9 FXP ship.  Hell, I wish that they'd added it, instead of the Musashi.

Number 13 class battleship

Note that it's called the "number 13" class (of 4 ships) because the ships never received any names.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,367
[SYN]
Members
4,548 posts
11,437 battles
1 minute ago, Crucis said:

I'd much rather see the IJN "Number 13" class battleship added to the game, probably as a tier 9 FXP ship.  Hell, I wish that they'd added it, instead of the Musashi.

Number 13 class battleship

Note that it's called the "number 13" class (of 4 ships) because the ships never received any names.

 

 

Wasn't there a 6x20" main gun variant of the Yamato proposed.  That would be interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,177
[SIM]
Members
2,541 posts
4,182 battles

There’s no need for this change, and even less chance that it will ever happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,806
[SALVO]
Members
17,089 posts
17,754 battles
3 minutes ago, Kuckoo said:

Wasn't there a 6x20" main gun variant of the Yamato proposed.  That would be interesting.

Yeah, I think that there was a "Super Yamato" idea floating around at some point.  Honestly though, that may be a bit beyond the scope of this game.  I find ships like the Tosa, Kii, and Number 13 to be more interesting.  For the life of me, I don't know why the Tosa hasn't been added to the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,062
[OPG]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,897 posts
10,471 battles

We don't need another supposed secondary bb. I don't see the need to have another one. Yamato's secondaries are already decent anyways if you spec into them. Plus yamato is an amazing brawler.

 

(This was old unbuffed turret traverse Yamato)

 

https://youtu.be/M97SVJVx-P0

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,093
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,327 posts
6,609 battles
1 hour ago, AbyssAngkor said:

Of course, her wing 155mm triple mounts would be replaced by 6 127 dual mounts, matching that of Yamato.

So to get this clear: You want a 1944 layout Musashi, but then want to give her an upgrade she never received?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,421
[DAKI]
[DAKI]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
12,538 posts
4,419 battles

Yamato does decently when it's fully specced for a secondary build anyway. It's been overshadowed now by newer secondary build capable ships, but  Yamato secondary spec meme builds were all the rage back in the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
409
[WOLFB]
Members
1,732 posts
8,284 battles

Musashi (and by extention Yamato) aren't brawler. The fact that it is the easiest T10 BB to citadel doesn't make her good either. Even if you buff her turret she would remain behind Kurfurst and Republique in terms of brawling. What we will have instead is a bad Yamato decent at long range shot and meh at brawling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
86
[PT8TO]
[PT8TO]
Members
160 posts
12,544 battles
1 hour ago, Kuckoo said:

Because there is nothing redundant at all about having a "1944 config Musashi" sharing the same tier as the Yamato that's there now.

  • Why do we need Warspite when we have Queen Elizabeth?
  • Why do we need Alabama when we have North Carolina?
  • Why do we need Boise when we have Helena?
  • Why do we need (insert premium here) and (tech tree version here)?

Because they offer an alternative play style that doesn't compromise optimal performance on a specific ship. Same reason why Amagi has better main battery and TDS, while Kii has better AAA and torps.

What I'm suggesting is not the same ship as the Yamato, but with different parameters on a similar hull that offers an alternative play style.

1 hour ago, SireneRacker said:

So to get this clear: You want a 1944 layout Musashi, but then want to give her an upgrade she never received?

Musashi had her 2 wing turrets replaced with 3 dual 127mm mounts on both sides, totaling to 6 mounts.

1 hour ago, Komrade_Rylo said:

We don't need another supposed secondary bb. I don't see the need to have another one. Yamato's secondaries are already decent anyways if you spec into them. Plus yamato is an amazing brawler.

 

(This was old unbuffed turret traverse Yamato)

 

https://youtu.be/M97SVJVx-P0

You don't need one, doesn't mean the rest of us don't want one.

1 hour ago, SkaerKrow said:

There’s no need for this change, and even less chance that it will ever happen. 

No one asked for Russian DD split, yet here we are. If it makes WG money, why not?

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,367
[SYN]
Members
4,548 posts
11,437 battles
11 minutes ago, AbyssAngkor said:

Because they offer an alternative play style that doesn't compromise optimal performance on a specific ship. Same reason why Amagi has better main battery and TDS, while Kii has better AAA and torps.

What I'm suggesting is not the same ship as the Yamato, but with different parameters on a similar hull that offers an alternative play style.

Oh, because that isn't already the case between the Musashi and Yamato we have in game now, right?

Got it.  :cap_like:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
428
[PVE]
[PVE]
Beta Testers
1,683 posts
3,824 battles
1 hour ago, AbyssAngkor said:
  • Musashi had her 2 wing turrets replaced with 3 dual 127mm mounts on both sides, totaling to 6 mounts.

Sources says they were unshielded triple 25mm AA mounts. Not 127mm mounts.

 

So 1944 Musashi is poorly suited for secodaries even more so than it currently is at tier 9.

At this point it's would make more sense to suggest shinano as the 3rd Yamato variant as it is rather different than the other two in certain areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,418
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
5,075 posts
6,792 battles
4 hours ago, AbyssAngkor said:

With Salem and Stalingrad in the game, I believe it's finally time for a tier 10 Musashi in its 1944 configuration. Here are 3 reasons to consider:

1. Currently, with the inclusion of Yamato's unique mod, the two battleships share identical roles, with Yamato showing more consistent gun performance. Musashi has lagged behind Yamato in terms of accuracy and did not receive the recent turret traverse buff given to the Yamato. Moving Musashi to tier 10 would justify any buffs to its main batteries. I propose increasing Musashi turret traverse to 3° per second to match Yamato and increasing her sigma to 1.9 for better consistency.

2. The IJN battleship line lacks a true secondary-capable BB competitive with German and French lines. The exception is Yamato herself, but she is not optimal for this role for a number of obvious reasons. Musashi, given her 1944 outfit, would fill this role. Of course, changes would have be made to make Musashi a tanky brawler. I propose that she receive a repair party that can recover 33% of citadel damage and 100% torpedo alpha damage. Overall heal amount is unchanged. Of course, her wing 155mm triple mounts would be replaced by 6 127 dual mounts, matching that of Yamato.

3. Many of us have wished for the return of USS Missouri as a FXP ship. Moving Musashi to tier 10 as a brawler would free up the previously occupied tier 9 niche. If Missouri was removed for another reason, then we can still bring in New Jersey as a FXP ship with a different comsumable loadout and credit earning.

Happy to read suggestions and comments.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×