Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Tpaktop2_1

Is the California the new Missouri?

50 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

670
[TFK]
[TFK]
Alpha Tester
1,613 posts
19,748 battles

I thought this ship was suppose to be bad? I did have the Zulu and India Bravo Terra three signals. It seems OK to me. This was a tier 8 battle BTW.

shot-20.07.11_14.54.04-0881.jpg

  • Cool 4
  • Confused 1
  • Boring 3
  • Meh 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
68
[PN]
WoWS Community Contributors
129 posts
5,991 battles

Like any ship, in the right hands it can do good work.  In bottom tier California is a joke to be honest. Its slow, has medioce guns and its aa wont protect it from tier 8 carriers since you are such an easy drop.

Again if you get the right combination of unaware players on the enemy team you can still do really good but dont expect it to be the next great premium. Its okay, does what it needs to do just slowly. 

Missouri is just a great tier 9 due to its gimmick and its ability to both sustain damage and deal it.

  • Cool 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
992
[NSC]
Members
2,333 posts
9 minutes ago, Tpaktop2_1 said:

I thought this ship was suppose to be bad? I did have the Zulu and India Bravo Terra three signals. It seems OK to me. This was a tier 8 battle BTW.

Great game! I won't comment on whether California is bad (it's certainly not the terrible kind of bad, but with any ship there's a cost/benefit analysis. Is it worth it for you to get the ship? Do you have any other ship that can occupy its niche? Is there a cheaper alternative?).

As for the title of your post, "Is the California the new Missouri?", I highly doubt it. When players think "Missouri", they tend to think about her increased credit earning potential. California does not have increased credit earning potential (that I know of). I doubt there will be another ship that earns Missouri-level credits. The next best alternative is other T9 premiums, of which California isn't one.

Hope this makes sense!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,740
[INTEL]
Members
13,073 posts
36,078 battles
27 minutes ago, Tpaktop2_1 said:

I thought this ship was suppose to be bad? I did have the Zulu and India Bravo Terra three signals. It seems OK to me. This was a tier 8 battle BTW.

 

What did you kill? Smaller ships that give greater XP? Then that's not surprising. 

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
385
[META_]
[META_]
Members
1,295 posts
30 minutes ago, Tpaktop2_1 said:

I thought this ship was suppose to be bad? I did have the Zulu and India Bravo Terra three signals. It seems OK to me. This was a tier 8 battle BTW.

shot-20.07.11_14.54.04-0881.jpg

i have seen one in battle, it look like a good ship for randoms...

 

i am trying to not buy that ship as i an willingnto get rossia soyuz and littorio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,646
[WOLF3]
Members
27,081 posts
23,857 battles

It's a self-propelled target drone.

 

Even the POS that is Krasny Krym has stats above the norm of Cruisers there.

The much troubled Roma has stats above the norm for tech tree Tier VIII BBs, yet nobody recommends her unless it's to purposely give bad advice for a bad purchase.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,715
[SOFOP]
Members
2,439 posts
14,361 battles

All ships can do damage and get kills....the things that makes it good or bad are things like: can you do well in it consistently?  How hard do you have to work to do so?  Are you making an impact to the game or are you just taking what is being given to you?

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,808
[WORX]
Members
10,705 posts
18,577 battles
36 minutes ago, Tpaktop2_1 said:

I thought this ship was suppose to be bad? I did have the Zulu and India Bravo Terra three signals. It seems OK to me. This was a tier 8 battle BTW.

Yuro pointed out, if you have correct timing, along with the know how as to what shell type to use.. Th California is a Decent ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32,608
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
24,183 posts
19,043 battles

The thing about California is that it doesn't do anything that other ships don't already do. Sure it can perform, but why would you pick her over *insert a panoply of other ships here*?

It's barely an upgrade over Arizona, which doesn't have the same bad MM.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
433
[O2]
Members
229 posts
20 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

It's a self-propelled target drone

Hahahaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,646
[WOLF3]
Members
27,081 posts
23,857 battles

Slap APRM1 on Arizona and you got Cali.

She's cheaper, too.

Even better, as a Tier VI, Arizona only has to deal with Massachusetts, NC, Bismarck, Tirpitz, Cleveland, etc.

 

Cali?  A train runs through called Tier IX:  Musashi, Jean Bart, Kitakaze, Jutland, Alaska, Siegfried, etc.  Tier IX has no brakes.

WSO1VRW.png

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,505
[--K--]
[--K--]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
2,382 posts

If you understand basic mechanics of the game, you'd know California is objectively just straight up bad.  It has a heavy broadside, yes, but Arizona 1 tier lower can do what it does with better MM among other things.

1 good game doesn't prove ANYTHING.  

If I had a dollar for every time someone like OP posts something like this about a bad ship....

  • Cool 4
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,328
[SIM]
Members
4,938 posts
8,014 battles

Yes, one decent game in California totally proves that it’s secretly a good ship. All of those people who put time and effort into evaluating her and analyzing her stats were totally wrong. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32,608
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
24,183 posts
19,043 battles

I'm really sick and tired of the general notion that a ship that's bad can't have a good match like ever.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
606
[SVF]
Members
1,727 posts
2,254 battles
1 hour ago, Lert said:

I'm really sick and tired of the general notion that a ship that's bad can't have a good match like ever.

Inversely there are those that think a good game here or there means a bad ship isn't that bad.  Which is also quite tiresome in its own way.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
549
[UN1]
Members
1,218 posts
3,670 battles
54 minutes ago, Lert said:

I'm really sick and tired of the general notion that a ship that's bad can't have a good match like ever.

I feel like a few unfavorably reviewed ships recently released have actually turned out to be much better than initially thought: Hayate, West Virginia, and I don't remember the reviews being too great on Georgia. 

Maybe California is a better ship than initially thought?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32,608
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
24,183 posts
19,043 battles
13 minutes ago, Ranari said:

I feel like a few unfavorably reviewed ships recently released have actually turned out to be much better than initially thought: Hayate, West Virginia, and I don't remember the reviews being too great on Georgia. 

Maybe California is a better ship than initially thought?

Georgia was always a good ship to anyone who could see beyond her having only six rifles. It's more a matter of the parrot portion of the forum who don't have their own opinion but just parrot the most clickbait-y complaints getting to see what those who saw the ship for what she was were seeing all along.

West Virginia '41 is just a standard, but with 16" rifles. 16" AP has a lot of authority at tier 6. There isn't really much of a way to screw up a Standard with 16" at tier 6. The problem with West Virginia '41 isn't that she's 'supposedly' bad, it's that she isn't the Puget Sound refit that everyone wanted. But she was never bad.

Hayate I can't really comment on.

The thing is, a 'bad' ship can have its fans while being undeniably bad. You can have good games in a bad ship. You can even enjoy a bad ship. Just like you can dislike an undeniably good ship, and can have bad games in a good ship. The 'quality' of a ship is only a relatively small part of the sum that makes up a match. What makes a ship bad is if there are other ships that offer similar play style and niche but are better at it. What makes a ship bad is if it doesn't have a role that it does without being overshadowed. And even then, the difference betweenan undeniably bad ship and an undeniably good ship isn't that great anyways. It isn't an insurmountable chasm. With good play a bad ship can shine and with bad play a good ship can flounder.

California is a bad ship because there's nothing she does that there aren't better options for. She's bad because she's barely an upgrade over Arizona, which doesn't have to contend with Georgia and Musashi. Not because she supposedly 'can't perform'.

Edited by Lert
  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
97
[ALLY]
Members
273 posts
18,478 battles

To all:

Do not have Cali, but have heard that it is kind of a stealth BB in that people do not consider her much of a threat especially when up tiered so they do not fire at her and she is slow enough that she kind of creeps up on people.  Kind of like the opposite of PR when everyone concentrated on it as soon as they saw it.

C130 signing out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,505
[--K--]
[--K--]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
2,382 posts
1 hour ago, Lert said:

I'm really sick and tired of the general notion that a ship that's bad can't have a good match like ever.

That's true.  Good players have shown time and again if you're good, you can make ANY ship work and perform very well.  Bad ships can perform well, and do in the right hands.

However, some good games (or even a single one) =/= good ship.  And that's something thrown around here way more than anything else.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,925
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
14,126 posts
19,213 battles
4 hours ago, Tpaktop2_1 said:

It seems OK to me.

Certainly that match does! Congrats on a very good win!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
670
[TFK]
[TFK]
Alpha Tester
1,613 posts
19,748 battles
4 hours ago, Taichunger said:

What did you kill? Smaller ships that give greater XP? Then that's not surprising. 

Snapshots below

3 hours ago, CaliburxZero said:

If you understand basic mechanics of the game, you'd know California is objectively just straight up bad.  It has a heavy broadside, yes, but Arizona 1 tier lower can do what it does with better MM among other things.

1 good game doesn't prove ANYTHING.  

If I had a dollar for every time someone like OP posts something like this about a bad ship....

I was wondering about the economic returns of the ship. Performance?, it is a tough ship to play

2 hours ago, Kapitan_Wuff said:

Why are you comparing it to Mighty Mo?

^^^above . Again, the economic returns of the ship. I was just wondering if WG put something in for California. Maybe its something that I am not aware of. However everyone posting here says otherwise. I was just surprise of the credits in the match with the Cali.

shot-20.07.11_14.54.10-0263.jpg

shot-20.07.11_14.54.15-0247.jpg

shot-20.07.11_14.54.20-0213.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
606
[SVF]
Members
1,727 posts
2,254 battles
1 hour ago, Tpaktop2_1 said:

Again, the economic returns of the ship. I was just wondering if WG put something in for California. Maybe its something that I am not aware of. However everyone posting here says otherwise. I was just surprise of the credits in the match with the Cali.

Well, part of the reason is you're running Warships Premium which boosts credit income by 50%. That accounts for ~176k of that sum.  A combat mission being completed gave you another 250k.  Those two factors are responsible for close to half of your earnings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
75
[CAAT]
Members
150 posts
3,781 battles
On 7/11/2020 at 5:52 PM, Tpaktop2_1 said:

I thought this ship was suppose to be bad? I did have the Zulu and India Bravo Terra three signals. It seems OK to me. This was a tier 8 battle BTW.

shot-20.07.11_14.54.04-0881.jpg

Congrats on your impressive Randoms match, OP!

Now, with that said...To be fair, I'm gonna say that you really cannot just assume a ship is "good" because of like ONE good Randoms match. Observe:CaliforniaRandomWin.thumb.JPG.36408a8d333aa25835d99744beeea557.JPGCalifornia121kDamageRandom2.thumb.jpg.73c4a21a46c694b3e1b834f760b4fed9.jpg

Just because I CAN do decently well in a Randoms match in California (imo), does NOT mean it's instantly a great ship. It DOES need buffs, of that, I argue, there's no real question. Cut the range of California to 16km like Arizona and you have for all intents and purposes, the same Tier 6 ship (because while you get SLIGHTLY better reload, sigma, what have you, you ALSO get bad firing arcs to balance it out and no, AA just doesn't cut it at this time to really be considered a "selling point", sorry. If CVs want to hit you, they WILL hit you. And there's not much your AA can do about it, no matter how good it is). Also, note the comparison of California is to a Tier 6 premium. Not Tier 7 ships. Try comparing Tier 7 BB King George V's guns to California's as a similar example (14in guns and such). Main battery reload for KGV is 25s, California's main battery reload? a very slow 34.2s....only 2 guns more and it's like 9s slower. It really does need its main battery reload dropped to 30s (as it originally was during testing). It also (logically imo) needs higher torpedo protection, I mean even Colorado beats it out (Colorado's 37% to California's 35%!!!) despite the latter literally having thicc anti-torpedo bulges that Colorado clearly lacks.

(for the record, this is all based off my OWN somewhat limited experience with the ship (81 Randoms matches in California so far and counting!))

And I would personally agree with Mouse in her California review, I think that the armor should be buffed to 32mm, but that one is just my opinion. Either that or give it a secondaries buff, which would make it pretty unique. Anyways, to reiterate, you CAN do well with California, as you did! But that does NOT mean she's "good", per se. She honestly needs buffs.

Edited by SaiIor_Moon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×