Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Markk9

West Virginia vs Arizona?

89 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

59
[13CLM]
Members
202 posts
1,129 battles

Anybody compare them yet? I have the Arizona, she is a fun ship to play and we all know the history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,361 posts
1,582 battles

Likely to have better gun performance at the expense of being able to rain maelstroms of slightly-less-rotund ordinance on your foes. Most players would choose the latter.

Edited by Battleship_DukeofYork

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
179
[SVF]
Members
899 posts
1,282 battles
1 hour ago, Markk9 said:

Anybody compare them yet? I have the Arizona, she is a fun ship to play and we all know the history.

Survivability

Arizona: 57200 HP, 25mm Bow/Stern plating, 37mm casemate plating, 343mm belt beneath a 26mm torpedo bulge, 37% base TDS

Wv41: 50200 HP, 25mm Bow/Stern plating, 25mm casemate plating, 343mm belt beneath a 25mm torpedo bulge, 22% base TDS

Artillery

Arizona: 4x3 356mm guns (5000 max HE with 30% fire chance and 834 m/s muzzle velocity, 10300 max AP with 792 m/s muzzle velocity), 60s base traverse, 35s reload, 16km range, 1.8 sigma; 8x1 127mm/25 and 10x1 127mm/51 secondary guns with 4.2km range

WV41: 4x2 406mm guns (5700 max HE with 36% fire chance and 803 m/s muzzle velocity, 12400 max AP with 768 m/s muzzle velocity), 45s base traverse, 30s reload, ~16.1km range, 1.8 sigma; 8x1 127mm/25 and 10x1 127mm/51 secondary guns with 4.2km range

AA Defense

Arizona: 8x1 12.7mm guns (30 DPS at 1.2km), 4x4 28mm guns (27 DPS at 3.1km), 8x1 127mm/25 guns (58 DPS at 4.2km)

WV41: 8x1 12.7mm guns (30 DPS at 1.2km), 4x1 76mm guns (11 DPS at 3.5km), 8x1 127mm/25 guns (58 DPS at 4.2km)

Manueverabiliy

Arizona: 21 knots max speed, 640m turn radius, 14.6s RST

WV41: 21 knots max speed, 670m turn radius, 13.7s RST

Concealment

Arizona: 14.4km base surface detection, 11.1km base air detection

WV41: 16.4km base surface detection, 14.7km base air detection

 

I'd take Arizona over WV41 in an instant.

Edited by landcollector
  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,602
[SALVO]
Members
16,660 posts
17,308 battles

Honestly, 16" guns on tier 6 ships worry me.  What worries me is that if you're in a tier 6 battle, your guns may have so much power that you're overpenning every cruiser in sight.  On the flip side, if the BB is given weaker shells that reduce this concern, you face the problem that in tier 8 battles when you're bottom tier, your guns may lack the punch to deal with top tier BBs.  You can see this problem in the Mutsu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
3,004 posts
10,057 battles
18 minutes ago, landcollector said:

I'd take Arizona over WV41 in an instant.

Here's a question for you since you brought the ship numbers into it, which I like btw, Arizona or New Mexico? (leave out the server average stats please lol)

Which do you think is best and why? Are they the same? Are they extremely different or just slightly?

Spoiler

Given the sigma value is better with the AZ, sigma isn't the end all be all and their dispersion is actually the same (it's not listed as such due to the AZ's range being a little further, hence the dispersion is 1m greater.

Going over the Ship stats of both vessels, seeing that they are very very similar, what makes them so different in the "server average" department? Could it be a "stigma" rather than the "sigma"?

I only ask because most people think the AZ is vastly superior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,898 posts
1,365 battles
4 minutes ago, BURN_Miner said:

Here's a question for you since you brought the ship numbers into it, which I like btw, Arizona or New Mexico? (leave out the server average stats please lol)

Which do you think is best and why? Are they the same? Are they extremely different or just slightly?

  Hide contents

Given the sigma value is better with the AZ, sigma isn't the end all be all and their dispersion is actually the same (it's not listed as such due to the AZ's range being a little further, hence the dispersion is 1m greater.

Going over the Ship stats of both vessels, seeing that they are very very similar, what makes them so different in the "server average" department? Could it be a "stigma" rather than the "sigma"?

I only ask because most people think the AZ is vastly superior.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,898 posts
1,365 battles

 

Az is superior due to armor, she takes a better lickin n keeps on tickin, and whatever her guns say, they peform better then NM.  Be it some hidden number we cant see, her spread is better and the results on the other end are better.  There is something about her that just makes her superior....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,391
[O_O]
Members
4,336 posts
9,308 battles

Arizona, easy.

 

Why?  Well, mostly because I don't like drama.  I thought the Alabama debacle was silly, and I think the West Virginia controversy is a mountain out of a molehill.  I don't recall any drama with Arizona's introduction, so that's a win.

Second, Arizona possesses a hallowed place in my heart.  Good luck beating that, WV.

And D) I have enough damned premiums.  I don't care to get worked up over another T6 (or T8) premium BB that I will only play 2-3 times every week or so.  I have 50+ premiums (and growing).  If a premium ship is going to leave an impression with me, it is going to take a lot more than a '41 or '48 (or whatever) after its name to do it.  I don't care a flip about either of the WV variants.  Perhaps winning one in a Santa crate will change my mind...

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,035
[WUDPS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,739 posts
4,538 battles

Neither because CV's will curb stomp them without a second thought. I'd rather take a New Mexico any day of the weak for the sole fact you need decent AA.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
179
[SVF]
Members
899 posts
1,282 battles
1 hour ago, BURN_Miner said:

Here's a question for you since you brought the ship numbers into it, which I like btw, Arizona or New Mexico? (leave out the server average stats please lol)

Which do you think is best and why? Are they the same? Are they extremely different or just slightly?

Heh, don't feel like going elsewhere for server averages anyway.   Considering the questions, hmmm.

 

They have different subtleties to them, for sure.  New Mexico's got less HP (53200 to Arizona's 57200) and slightly thinner casemate and bulge plating (25mm compared to Arizona's 37mm/26mm sections respectively), but NM has slightly better TDS protection (40% to Arizona's 37%) and frontal citadel bulkheads (343mm compared to Arizona's 203mm-330mm frontal bulkhead).

 

Arizona's guns are generally better due to improved sigma/accuracy (1.8 sigma compared to NM's 1.5), but then again the shotgun effect might help in trying to land hits on a DD or if you just had poor aim/dispersion.  Still, Arizona's gunnery is better hands down in most situations.

 

New Mexico's AA suite is flatout superior to Arizona's.  They might share a 8x1 127mm/25 long suite aura, but New Mexico's short range and mid range aura are just better ( 8x2 and 3x1 20mm providing 60 DPS at 2km, 4x1 and 4x2 40mm providing 75 DPS at 3.5km compared to Arizona's 8x1 12.7mm guns (30 DPS at 1.2km) and 4x4 28mm guns (27 DPS at 3.1km)).

New Mexico's speed and turn radius are the same as Arizona's, but her RST is better (13.5s compared to 14.6s).  The two ships' concealment are within 400m of each other, so very similar.

Edited by landcollector
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
115
[SRPH]
[SRPH]
Members
453 posts
961 battles
1 minute ago, Dr_Venture said:

Neither because CV's will curb stomp them without a second thought. I'd rather take a New Mexico any day of the weak for the sole fact you need decent AA.

The mechanics and/or performance of which will be changing with the CV rework...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,898 posts
1,365 battles
2 minutes ago, Dr_Venture said:

Neither because CV's will curb stomp them without a second thought. I'd rather take a New Mexico any day of the weak for the sole fact you need decent AA.

Were gunna need alot more AA then NM has to stand a chance in hell of surviving in the CV rework.

So far even seen Notser curb stomp a Monty in the rework.  8 unlimited planes for 1 monty?  Thats a good trade...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,035
[WUDPS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,739 posts
4,538 battles
Just now, Bonfor said:

The mechanics and/or performance of which will be changing with the CV rework...

If you think some single 5 inch mounts, a handful of 50 cal's and a pair of Chicago pianos will protect you...well good luck homie!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,391
[O_O]
Members
4,336 posts
9,308 battles
5 minutes ago, Dr_Venture said:

Neither because CV's will curb stomp them without a second thought. I'd rather take a New Mexico any day of the weak for the sole fact you need decent AA.

Meh.  I have played Arizona a fair bit.  You are right, she doesn't have great AA.  If a CV gets wood for you, you are probably screwed without help.

But, it really hasn't been an issue.  CV's are not that common, and even with one or two in the game, I don't typically draw their focused attention. 

We will see if this changes after the CV re-work.

Edited by desmo_2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,898 posts
1,365 battles
1 minute ago, Bonfor said:

The mechanics and/or performance of which will be changing with the CV rework...

How much better is AA gunna get then what it is now?

Atm it barely even hits planes, thousands of tracers, hundreds of puffs, very few hits...and fewer dead unlimited planes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,141
[SCTFB]
[SCTFB]
Beta Testers
3,926 posts
14,814 battles

I am still a die hard Warspite fan so neither for me

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,898 posts
1,365 battles
Just now, desmo_2 said:

Meh.  I have played Arizona a fair bit.  You are right, she doesn't have great AA.  If a CV gets wood for you, you are probably screwed without help.

But, it really hasn't been an issue.  CV's are not that common, and even with one or two in the game, I don't typically draw their focused attention.  I suspect this may be even less of an issue after the CV re-work.

Seriously?  U dont think cvs will be a problem after tge rework?  I predict any ship with less then 100 AA rating being simply farmed, ofc, after the CVs throw away planes sinking each other.  Then with potentially 3 cvs per team, ships like AZ n WV will be defenseless dmg pinatas.  Then with player control and huge flights, any ships with bad aa n slow rudder shift will get curbstomped first, even idiots will go after AZ n WV...its gunna be real bad for low tier ships, some which dont even have AA....unless AA gets a drastic buff, its gunna be ugly, and a definite CV meta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,621
[E-E]
[E-E]
Members
15,661 posts
14,042 battles

AZ has better armor than the later Colorado-class?  Heh!

 

AZ has one of the most reliable sets of guns in Tier VI BB Land.  Not the largest, these are only 356mm, but they're reliable in bagging hits.  Matter of fact, this alone was her selling point as she is much more accurate than NM.

 

CO, even fully researched, upgraded at Tier VII, was never a good example of reliable BB guns.  A-Hull version at Tier VI isn't going to be any better in that.  WV41 has worse sigma than Colorado (1.8 vs 1.9).  However, the Old WV41 stats had something going for it to help alleviate that problem... Super Concealment.  Old WV41 would have been stealthier than Caesar, and Caesar is a BB that could outspot some Cruisers.  Think about that.  Old WV41 could creep up for the surprise attacks at much more favorable ranges where she can more reliably hit.  These guns would be devastating to both Cruisers and Battleships she encounters.  USN BBs have very heavy shells and they have a little bit of arc to them, so it's not like a level shooting BB where shells will fly straight through a Cruiser hull for Overpens.  They arc and crash down.  With the shorter ranges to surprise people, she can get more hits on other BBs.  With heavy USN BB AP shells and being 406mm, these would be quite strong on BB targets, even higher tier.  And with the superior concealment, she can disengage more easily than AZ, VII Colorado, NM could.

 

But that's irrelevant these days.  This thing has poor concealment now.  If she's stuck now to typically fight at medium and long ranges, then AZ is vastly superior because she will more reliably hit. 

Both WV41 and AZ have the same sigma, same dispersion, identical range, but AZ has 12 guns to get hits.  She will reload slower than WV41 (35 vs 30), but WeeVee isn't going to be getting many hits.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,391
[O_O]
Members
4,336 posts
9,308 battles
7 minutes ago, KnightFandragon said:

Seriously?  U dont think cvs will be a problem after tge rework?  I predict any ship with less then 100 AA rating being simply farmed, ofc, after the CVs throw away planes sinking each other.  Then with potentially 3 cvs per team, ships like AZ n WV will be defenseless dmg pinatas.  Then with player control and huge flights, any ships with bad aa n slow rudder shift will get curbstomped first, even idiots will go after AZ n WV...its gunna be real bad for low tier ships, some which dont even have AA....unless AA gets a drastic buff, its gunna be ugly, and a definite CV meta.

I edited my comment before I saw yours, as I really don't know what to expect of CV's after the re-work.  I haven't been keeping up with the chat and videos on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,849 posts
4,088 battles

prinz eittel,she will stomp both of those wallmart bathtubs. faster,stealthiers,better AA,more accurate,faster reload.

take it to the bank.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
115
[SRPH]
[SRPH]
Members
453 posts
961 battles
7 minutes ago, desmo_2 said:

I edited my comment before I saw yours, as I really don't know what to expect of CV's after the re-work.  I haven't been keeping up with the chat and videos on the subject.

Right now the focus has been on the CVs and the squadron mechanics from what I've seen...nothing on how AA will change. I think it was Notser that reported that once your squadron got past the flack layer, the short range AA was barely noticeable as far as damage output.  This might make ships with a few heavy flack guns have more effective AA than those with lots of smaller direct fire guns and no flack guns, unless they go back and tweak short range AA values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,849 posts
4,088 battles
2 minutes ago, Bonfor said:

Right now the focus has been on the CVs and the squadron mechanics from what I've seen...nothing on how AA will change. I think it was Notser that reported that once your squadron got past the flack layer, the short range AA was barely noticeable as far as damage output.  This might make ships with a few heavy flack guns have more effective AA than those with lots of smaller direct fire guns and no flack guns, unless they go back and tweak short range AA values.

for now the CV rework is focusing o nthe squadrons,we might expect a new test server to adress the AA changes.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,621
[E-E]
[E-E]
Members
15,661 posts
14,042 battles
11 minutes ago, Cruxdei said:

for now the CV rework is focusing o nthe squadrons,we might expect a new test server to adress the AA changes.

Yep, I see this happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,898 posts
1,365 battles
4 minutes ago, Cruxdei said:

for now the CV rework is focusing o nthe squadrons,we might expect a new test server to adress the AA changes.

Even once Aa changes, the problem with unlimited planes is there is absolutely 0 risk to the CV player.  Every other class, including plane count CV, imparts a risk to deal dmg, in the potential loss of health and the ship.  Unlimited planes, where is the risk if u lose all the planes, u have 12 more.  Its akin to giving a BB unlimited health.  It might not land any salvos but any damage it takes is irrelevant.  Unlimited plane counts means CV players have to use ze noro thinking ability or strategy in dmg dealing, besides rush in, shoot, come back, repeat.  In this game where u all tout risk vs reward, strategy n tactics, the CV will need none of it.  In a clutch, 1-2 ships vs a CV, the CV will win 100% of the time, just spam planes and land 1 hit per flight, ur gunna start fires and just burn down the attacking ships.

Hell on the cv vs cv, there is nothing to prevent them 2 from just throwing planes at each other until 1 wins...unlimited planes is a terrible idea, and the biggst and honestly only thing wrong with the CV rework, the rest looks good.

They could make CVs easier to play and still keep plane counts, in turn keeping the balance of risk vs reward in check....

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×