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

California and T9

39 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,700
[CNO]
[CNO]
Members
5,890 posts
17,933 battles

They say she struggles.  Not so much in performance, but in simply doing enough to carry.  But that can often be said of any T7 in a T9 match.

shot-20_07.11_23_46.24-0303.thumb.jpg.dfb5324cb9b3440f29624460a4ef68d5.jpgshot-20_07.12_00_25.10-0828.thumb.jpg.024fbf7afa640aaf0f3c0230f5190a10.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
475
[CLUMP]
Members
823 posts
1,168 battles

This video says otherwise if you like pain and suffering and are masochist California is right up your alley :Smile_popcorn:

Edited by LastRemnant
  • Cool 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
603
[SVF]
Members
1,718 posts
2,254 battles

Is there a point to spamming the subforum with these kinds of threads beyond pushing the narrative of "California's a good T7 premium, guys, I swear"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,962
[GWG]
Members
6,956 posts
13,500 battles

Well....  It was a REAL SHIP, so as a collector, I'll get it soon.

If for anything but just to look at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
603
[SVF]
Members
1,718 posts
2,254 battles
1 hour ago, AVR_Project said:

Well....  It was a REAL SHIP, so as a collector, I'll get it soon.

If for anything but just to look at.

*sighs*

Despite my better judgement about giving WG money for it, I may break down and buy it as well, for the same reason.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,627
[WOLF3]
Members
27,058 posts
23,842 battles
36 minutes ago, LastRemnant said:

This video says otherwise if you like pain and suffering and are masochist California is right up your alley :Smile_popcorn:

One can slap APRM1 on Arizona in Tier VI and have the same experience, yet not have to see Tier IX.

And AZ is cheaper.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,712
[INTEL]
Members
13,057 posts
36,022 battles
39 minutes ago, landcollector said:

Is there a point to spamming the subforum with these kinds of threads beyond pushing the narrative of "California's a good T7 premium, guys, I swear"?

Nope. Can't understand why Soshi is doing this. Threads saying "excellent player can do well even in subpar ship" are meaningless. California remains a hard pass for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,627
[WOLF3]
Members
27,058 posts
23,842 battles
1 minute ago, Taichunger said:

Nope. Can't understand why Soshi is doing this. Threads saying "excellent player can do well even in subpar ship" are meaningless. California remains a hard pass for me.

I am a California resident.

I grew up in this state.

My hometown is Vallejo, California.  Mare Island Naval Shipyard used to be there and built ships for the USN.

Battleship California was built in my hometown.

I was excited when WG first announced Cali.

 

I knew 356mm guns in Tier VII was a potential problem but seeing how WG handled King George V, I had faith she'd be done right.

 

How she turned out Live, she became a big "No" for me.  No amount of home state, home town pride was going to make me accept how she turned out.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,561
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
12,496 posts
6 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

How she turned out Live, she became a big "No" for me.  No amount of home state, home town pride was going to make me accept how she turned out.

When folks talk about them having "No Clue", I'll remember this post. Sad, ain't it? Didn't need to be OP, just good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
394
[WOLF5]
Members
1,074 posts
8,912 battles

Consistent with what I noted for the newly proposed USA BB line and now for the California is the famous quote by Bear Bryant who commented that: "You can coach everything but speed"......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,260
[PVE]
Members
11,837 posts
24,507 battles
10 hours ago, landcollector said:

Is there a point to spamming the subforum with these kinds of threads beyond pushing the narrative of "California's a good T7 premium, guys, I swear"?

No different then so many spamming the forums that it is crap AND at least OP has the ship and has played it vs so many of the naysayers who haven't.

I enjoy the OP's posts showing the ship is not as bad as so many have claimed. Maybe rather than slamming the OP for doing this people should rethink why they don't like it and consider maybe they got bad info on it initially.

Edited by AdmiralThunder
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 3
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
603
[SVF]
Members
1,718 posts
2,254 battles
1 hour ago, AdmiralThunder said:

No different then so many spamming the forums that it is crap AND at least OP has the ship and has played it vs so many of the naysayers who haven't.

I enjoy the OP's posts showing the ship is not as bad as so many have claimed. Maybe rather than slamming the OP for doing this people should rethink why they don't like it and consider maybe they got bad info on it initially.

I'm amused that, according to you, we can't rely on previous game knowledge and comparisons to similar ships already available to make judgement on California.  No, you say "pay 40+ USD before you're allowed to have a counting opinion".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,260
[PVE]
Members
11,837 posts
24,507 battles
10 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

One can slap APRM1 on Arizona in Tier VI and have the same experience, yet not have to see Tier IX.

And AZ is cheaper.

Actually no. 

  • CA has longer gun range stock than AZ does w/ APRM1
  • CA can use MBM2 to lower turret rotation which AZ really can't afford (it needs the range of APRM1) so CA has a 5+ sec turret rotation edge
  • CA is more accurate than AZ and with the faster shells it is easier to hit at range than it is with AZ
  • CA has better concealment than AZ
  • CA actually has AA, and good AA, whereas AZ has crap AA

So unless you mean being slow with a long reload (CA's reload is slightly shorter) CA would be a much better experience than AZ at least T5-T8 MM. Not so sure CA seeing T9 is that much worse than AZ seeing T8 frankly as well.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,260
[PVE]
Members
11,837 posts
24,507 battles
27 minutes ago, landcollector said:

I'm amused that, according to you, we can't rely on previous game knowledge and comparisons to similar ships already available to make judgement on California.  No, you say "pay 40+ USD before you're allowed to have a counting opinion".

Not saying you can't rely on previous game experience nor have an opinion but said opinion should be reasonable and not full of hyperbole and infantile labels and such.

If you have played the game enough you can draw some conclusions on whether or not you are likely to enjoy a ship based on stats certainly. I did that (ie; used my game experience) which lead me to actually buy it. I like US Standard BB's despite being slow and having long reloads. CA's stats aren't as bad as some make out (especially when they use AZ to compare against and say AZ is great and CA is crap) and neither is the ship. I quite enjoy it even facing T9. The ship is far from OP but it is just as far from being a craptastic turd as so many claim.

The OP is one of many who have posted on the forum that CA is decent and not as bad as some reviewers labeled it; and they have shown game results to prove it. Yet people who haven't played it call them out and tell them they are wrong. How can someone be wrong for liking a ship and doing well in it?

The general consensus on this ship for far too many people was formed before they even gave it a chance based on a review slamming it. My point is maybe instead of relying on one person for data and reviews, and treating said one person as an infallible God, people should open their eyes and actually use their own JUDGEMENT TO BUY OR NOT. IF you can say I don't want CA because I don't like slow ships and/or ships with long reloads I salute you. :Smile_honoring: IF you are slamming CA and calling it crapola because of the reviews of another then I can only :Smile_facepalm:.

If the stats don't appeal to you that is fine. Just don't buy it. However, when people who feel that way go beyond a simple it's not for me and call it garbage and trash because so and so said that, and slam those who do like it and are posting (as YOU did to the OP), they lose credibility. Nothing wrong with not wanting to buy it because you don't like slow ships with a long reload. But CA is still a decent ship despite those 2 things.

You seem to be the one who has issues with a different opinion not me.

 

  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
506
[GGWP]
Beta Testers
1,661 posts
8,800 battles
10 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

I am a California resident.

I grew up in this state.

My hometown is Vallejo, California.

 

Small world. I went to Armijo High School in Fairfield. I used to do martial arts exhibitions in Vallejo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,627
[WOLF3]
Members
27,058 posts
23,842 battles
4 hours ago, Herr_Reitz said:

When folks talk about them having "No Clue", I'll remember this post. Sad, ain't it? Didn't need to be OP, just good. 

KGV this same tier showed how 356mm could be "gamed up" to work well for the tier.  KGV has RNBB Mega HE, Short Fused AP, and 25 seconds reload for her 356mm x10.  She's also fast.

 

Her sister Duke of York has a maligned reputation because she doesn't reload as fast as KGV, 29.5 seconds instead of 25, but she does have real nice points about her.  She still has RNBB Mega HE, Short Fused AP for her 356mm x10 main battery.  Still fast like KGV.  But she also has two more perks:  Hydro access (rare outside High Tier German BBs, and in Tier VII no less) and her AP has special bounce angles.

DOY AP 356mmx10, 60-67.5 degrees, which is improved.

KGV AP 356mmx10, 45-60 degrees, which is normal

USN CAs 60-67.5 degrees, a known benefit of the line, all USN CAs have this (NOLA, DM for example), even Super Cruiser Alaska.

California AP 356mmx12, 45-60 degrees, normal.

 

California has nothing.  No special AP or HE, no special bounce angles, no improved reload for her guns.  She's slower than Colorado, her turret traverse is even worse than Colorado's (60 seconds vs 45 of Colorado).  Colorado even has better rudder shift time.

"Okay, Haze.  So there's nothing special about her gunnery and shells, nothing special about her gun handling.  Her reload is just like a Tier VI USN BB.  Her speed is worst in tier and even Colorado maneuvers better and the gun traverse is better.  Maybe her consumables are special if she's going to get picked on?"

No.

Her DCP is the same as Colorado's.  Even better, Colorado like all the tech tree USN BBs has an Improved Repair Party.

California RP HP per second: +0.5%

Colorado RP HP per second: +0.66%

 

California needed something, but she didn't get anything from WG.  This is a tier where the "Standard" of Battleship Firepower transitioned to 406mm / 410mm guns.  Nelson, Colorado, Nagato, and of course, Mighty Sinop reside here.  The 356mm armed BBs of Tier VII were spiced up to make them enticing.  Except for California.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
603
[SVF]
Members
1,718 posts
2,254 battles
1 hour ago, AdmiralThunder said:

slam those who do like it and are posting (as YOU did to the OP)

So, questioning a thread's purpose is now slamming an OP?  No, I refute that assertion.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
385
[META_]
[META_]
Members
1,295 posts

(meanwhile in) i am in the middle of every topic trying to not buy her. lol.

 

C'mon Littorio and Rossyia !!!

Edited by Felipe_1982

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,260
[PVE]
Members
11,837 posts
24,507 battles
14 minutes ago, landcollector said:

So, questioning a thread's purpose is now slamming an OP?  No, I refute that assertion.

Refute away my man I could care less. The only reason you posted what you did about the OP was to attack them. Period and end of story. IF you don't want to see positive posts about CA avoid the threads where that is the obvious intent of the OP. Plenty of threads for you to join in bashing the ship out there where you clearly would be happier.

Done with you on this. All you want is trouble and I am not taking the bait any more.

  • Boring 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,260
[PVE]
Members
11,837 posts
24,507 battles
15 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

Because one thread wasn't enough...

 

 

That thread was a general CA is good. This one is vs T9 specifically.

Nothing wrong with OP posting they like the ship and making some threads about it. IF you find their multiple threads praising it as too much I expect you to post in all the negative threads saying it is too much too.

People are out of control with this CA hate.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,627
[WOLF3]
Members
27,058 posts
23,842 battles
19 minutes ago, Felipe_1982 said:

(meanwhile in) i am in the middle of every topic trying to not buy her. lol.

 

C'mon Littorio and Rossyia !!!

I was curious about what S.Rossiya would bring, but in the end she is a worse version of S.Soyuz because of HP levels, AA power, worse turret traverse, all for the sake of 0.1 better Sigma.

AL S.Rossiya has 80.9k HP, 45 seconds traverse, for her 1.8 Sigma

S.Soyuz 88.1k HP, 30 seconds traverse, 1.7 Sigma.

Sovetskaya Rossiya's AA is also markedly worse than Sovetsky Soyuz's, and the latter's AA was never that good to begin with.  The reason is S.Soyuz has an all 130mm DP Secondary / AA suite, while S.Rossiya has a mix of 100mm and 152mm guns (the 152mm aren't Dual Purpose).  Secondaries range is still identical between the two at 5km stock range, which is nothing to write home about in Tier IX.

 

Of course all this can change as she's not "Live" yet.

 

But Azur Lane already has had its update implementing a bunch of WoWS ships:  Odin, Drake, Champagne, Mainz, and Cheshire, as of the July 9 AL update.  They were supposed to happen at around the same time so I'd be ready for the WoWS version if that's what you're wanting.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


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

At least Sovetskaya Rossiya is based on the S.Soyuz of Tier IX.  Nobody ever talks about S.Soyuz but she's silently done extremely well.  When people talk about RU BBs, all they ever mention are Sinop and Kremlin, and fail to account that S.Soyuz has done very well even for a tech tree BB.

I was curious about what S.Rossiya would bring, but in the end she is a worse version of S.Soyuz because of HP levels, AA power, all for the sake of 0.1 better Sigma.

AL S.Rossiya has 80.9k HP for her 1.8 Sigma

S.Soyuz 88.1k HP, 1.7 Sigma.

Sovetskaya Rossiya's AA is also markedly worse than Sovetsky Soyuz's, and the latter's AA was never that good to begin with.

 

Of course all this can change as she's not "Live" yet.

 

But Azur Lane already has had its update implementing a bunch of WoWS ships:  Odin, Drake, Champagne, Mainz, and Cheshire, as of the July 9 AL update.  They were supposed to happen at around the same time so I'd be ready for the WoWS version if that's what you're wanting.

I didnt notice there were that huge gap between then!!! Almost 8.000 hp? not fair...

 

I tend to play with premiums cause of the money i can generate. I barely grind my tech trees at least for now.

( i need to buy a lot of things for the ships yet).

 

Azur Lane collab must be alive again this week. WG twitter account is teasing us daily. As for Drake, champagne Mainz and Cheshire i think there will be new commanders, and 2 ships: littorio and  Rossiya.

 

Hit Points:   80,900 hp
Overall:   19~495 mm
Citadel Deck:   50 mm
Citadel  Fore Athwartship:   230 mm
Citadel  Aft Athwartship:   75 mm
Citadel Torpedo Bulkhead:   20~58 mm
Turrets:   220~495 mm
Torpedo Damage Protection:   35%
Tonnage:   65,150 tn

MAIN BATTERY
3 x 3 406 mm/50 MK-1-406:
Max Range:   19.4 km
Reload:   33 s
180° Turn Time:   45 s
Dispersion:   254 m
Sigma:   1.80σ

SHELL TYPES

 
HE SHELLS
406 mm HE Model 1937:
Alpha Damage:   5800
Alpha Piercing HE:   68.0 mm
Ammo Type:   HE
Shell Air Drag:   0.3045
Shell Always Ricochet At:   60.0°
Shell Detonator:   0.001
Shell Detonator Threshold:   2.0
Shell Diameter:   406 mm
Shell Krupp:   250.0
Shell Mass:   1108.0
Shell Ricochet At:   91.0°
Shell Speed:   830.0 m/s
Burn Probability:   40%
 
AP SHELLS
406 mm AP Model 1937:
Alpha Damage:   13250
Ammo Type:   AP
Shell Air Drag:   0.247
Shell Always Ricochet At:   60.0°
Shell Detonator:   0.033
Shell Detonator Threshold:   68.0
Shell Diameter:   406 mm
Shell Krupp:   2300.0
Shell Mass:   1108.0
Shell Ricochet At:   45.0°
Shell Speed:   830.0 m/s

SECONDARIES
6 x 2 152 mm/57 MK-17/OFU-35:
Range:   5.0 km
Damage:   2200 hp
Chance of Fire:   12%
Reload:   8 s
HE Armour Penetration:   25 mm
Shell Velocity:   950 m/s
Shell Mass:   55 kg
4 x 2 100 mm/56 MZ-14/HE-56:
Range:   5.0 km
Damage:   1400 hp
Chance of Fire:   6%
Reload:   3.8 s
HE Armour Penetration:   17 mm
Shell Velocity:   895 m/s
Shell Mass:   15.8 kg

AA DEFENCE
LONG RANGE 
4 x 2 100 mm/56 MZ-14:
Action Zone:   ~3.5-5.8 km
Hit Probability:   75 %
Damage Within an Explosion:   1400
Continuous Damage Per Second:   77
Continuous Damage:   168
Number of Explosions Per Salvo:   4
MID RANGE
8 x 1 37 mm 70-K
8 x 4 37 mm 46-KR:
Action Zone:   ~3.2 km
Hit Probability:   75 %
Continuous Damage Per Second:   266

MANOEUVRABILITY
Maximum Speed:   28 kts
Turning Circle Radius:   950 m
Rudder Shift Time:   14.9 s
Propulsion:   231,000 hp

CONCEALMENT
Surface Detectability:   16.7 km
* Detectability After Firing MB Guns:   19.4 km
* Detectability After Firing Secondary Guns:   16.7 km
* Detectability With Ship on Fire:   18.7 km
Air Detectability:   13.4 km
* Detectability After Firing Secondary Guns:   13.4 km
* Detectability With Ship on Fire:   16.4 km
Detectability after Firing Main Guns in Smoke:   16.1 km

CONSUMABLES

Slot 1:  Damage Control Party:
Charges:   4
Work Time:   10 s
Reload Time:   40 s

Slot 2:  Repair Party.
Charges:   3
Action time:   28 s
Reload Time:   80 s
Regenerated hp per Second:   +404 hp/s
(Total hp regenerated per action ~11,312 hp)

Slot 3:  Fighter.
Charges:   3
Action time:   60 s
Reload Time:   90 s
Flight Radius:   3 km
Fighters:   x4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,654
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
15,735 posts
17 minutes ago, AdmiralThunder said:

That thread was a general CA is good. This one is vs T9 specifically.

Nothing wrong with OP posting they like the ship and making some threads about it. IF you find their multiple threads praising it as too much I expect you to post in all the negative threads saying it is too much too.

People are out of control with this CA hate.

I have very little patience for one person posting multiple stealth-brag threads about the same exact thing.

Not a fan of the spammed hate threads about anything that seem to dominate general discussion (oh look, it's ANOTHER thread about CVs, AAs, DDs, or their interactions, we didn't have three of those already today or anything...)  but at least they're usually different posters. 

Or maybe this is just the instance where I got too sick of thread spam to keep biting my tongue.

 

Edited by KilljoyCutter
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×