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

ST 0.9.10, American Battleships, part 2 Event and other news

55 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

729
Members
1,746 posts
11,700 battles

Can I preemptively get a refund on the Oklahoma cause that ship looks like garbage. I mean who thought a 40s reload on trash guns was a good idea?

  • Cool 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
82
[-K-]
[-K-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
187 posts
9,708 battles

So if 9.9 has Kansas and Minnesota in early access where's Vermont at, not in 9.10? 

3 ships going for 2 full patch cycles again? Shades of Russian Cruisers :3.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
627
[SVF]
Members
1,780 posts
2,335 battles

So, that's why OK was nerfed into oblivion.  Can't say the decison was a remotely well thought out one.  Par for the course these days, sadly.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
291
[CAAT]
Members
501 posts
4,389 battles
6 minutes ago, Rouxi said:

 I mean who thought a 40s reload on trash guns was a good idea?

The same dev team who thought slapping a 4.2s reload nerf on California's 14in guns at Tier 7 was fine, they also thought the CV rework was "fine", they thought Hizen deserved to be DOA with an 8s reload nerf, and the same dev team that thought that 40s reload battleships in general were a "good idea".

Wargaming, probably: "When in doubt, put a reload nerf on it! Unless it's Russian. then just nerf the laughably useless AA a little bit, to show us nerfing it. "

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
291
[CAAT]
Members
501 posts
4,389 battles
30 minutes ago, tfcas119 said:

phpkjPGCd

Great camo, nice its free, but a shame a camo that good is wasted on a POS

Tbh, it's a lovely ship aesthetically.......and the camo is very nice. At LEAST it's a free ship, so I mean...at least there's that. But still, 40s reload with only ten 14in guns at TIER 5 is basically unusable compared to both New York AND Texas. Why on EARTH would you use Oklahoma over those two?!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
275
[TOG]
Members
207 posts
11,185 battles

Not to pile on but at T5 she's gonna get harrassed and blapped by their stupid two carriers-a-side meta.

Her ultimate IRL fate aside, she will probably have a couple of light machine guns to take on the swarms of planes she was never built to deal with.

So, swarmed by bees while waiting 40 seconds to reload the mains, while the secondaries sit silent cuz they will have probably a 3 to 4 km range, all while she is rained on by HE spammers.

Yeeeaaahhhh .... 

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
291
[CAAT]
Members
501 posts
4,389 battles
9 minutes ago, BCGrog said:

Not to pile on but at T5 she's gonna get harrassed and blapped by their stupid two carriers-a-side meta.

Her ultimate IRL fate aside, she will probably have a couple of light machine guns to take on the swarms of planes she was never built to deal with.

So, swarmed by bees while waiting 40 seconds to reload the mains, while the secondaries sit silent cuz they will have probably a 3 to 4 km range, all while she is rained on by HE spammers.

Yeeeaaahhhh .... 

Not to mention, let's just look at those main guns for a sec, Ok? So Minnesota, Kansas, and Vermont, they've got LONG 40s reloads, right? But they've ALSO got MORE heavy guns for their tier than any existing battleship at those tiers! TWELVE 16in guns! And in Vermont's case, twelve 18in guns. Ok, but 40s is still too slow, but whatever. Now let's look at Oklahoma, a Tier 5 BB btw. only TEN 14in guns, the SAME as New York, the SAME as Texas. Alright, so she's not winning in sheer number of guns for her tier, unlike the split-line BBs. She's not even winning in caliber for her tier! And yet, she gets a ridiculously terrible 40s reload anyways? I mean, why?! Just....WHY?! There is NO point in using Oklahoma over New York or even Texas. Zero. None. Nada. UNLESS Oklahoma's secondaries turn out to be MAGICALLY "Massachusetts-style", but they should really be saving that for Nevada '42, or Wee Vee '44, or Tennessee, since California's secondaries are just standard. I just don't understand the logic of these changes....

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,157
[POP]
Members
4,745 posts
12,813 battles
1 hour ago, SaiIor_Moon said:

Why on EARTH would you use Oklahoma over those two?!

Better gun angles supposedly. And I remember reading something about Oklahoma getting Mass/Georgia/Ohio secondary dispersion and reload. So a secondary BB at t5, but one with a secondary range of 6-7km max with a full build, on a ship that can’t break 20 knots without a speed flag. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,484
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
8,415 posts
12,296 battles
4 hours ago, tfcas119 said:

phpkjPGCd

love the camo, but like you said, shame it wasted on a ship that not even worth getting even if its for free when literally everything else at its tier will outdo it in everything, but i guess this camo makes it worth getting, just to be able to see it everyday

Edited by tcbaker777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
62
[YOU]
Beta Testers
401 posts
6,108 battles

That 40 sec reload on 10 14 inch guns at tier V is one h*ll Davy Jones's Locker of a bitter pill to swallow, but I'll probably still work for her. A historical ship that looks nice and is of a tier to directive grind? Sure. And who knows, maybe it'll click with me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
291
[CAAT]
Members
501 posts
4,389 battles
47 minutes ago, MidnightPhoenix07 said:

And I remember reading something about Oklahoma getting Mass/Georgia/Ohio secondary dispersion and reload.

I don't remember reading that, but if that's true, well at least it has SOMETHING going for it, despite the super-slow ship speed. Still doesn't actually excuse a near 6s reload increase to main battery though. Not by a long shot! If they want to nerf the reload, absolutely no more than 35s really, since Texas has a 34.2s reload, that would be in-line for Oklahoma. And no, good gun arcs = 40s reload lols!

Edited by SaiIor_Moon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,057
[SALVO]
Members
25,798 posts
28,042 battles
4 hours ago, SaiIor_Moon said:

Tbh, it's a lovely ship aesthetically.......and the camo is very nice. At LEAST it's a free ship, so I mean...at least there's that. But still, 40s reload with only ten 14in guns at TIER 5 is basically unusable compared to both New York AND Texas. Why on EARTH would you use Oklahoma over those two?!

Maybe its accuracy is a lot better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,157
[POP]
Members
4,745 posts
12,813 battles
2 hours ago, SaiIor_Moon said:

I don't remember reading that, but if that's true, well at least it has SOMETHING going for it, despite the super-slow ship speed. Still doesn't actually excuse a near 6s reload increase to main battery though. Not by a long shot! If they want to nerf the reload, absolutely no more than 35s really, since Texas has a 34.2s reload, that would be in-line for Oklahoma. And no, good gun arcs = 40s reload lols!

Oh definitely, but how dare you expect WG to give away a free premium that isn't bad or worse:Smile_trollface:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
291
[CAAT]
Members
501 posts
4,389 battles
22 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Maybe its accuracy is a lot better?

Even if its accuracy was much better, it still doesn't justify a reload of 40s imo...that is just WAY too long, especially with the guns Oklahoma has. It's only ten 14in guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
627
[SVF]
Members
1,780 posts
2,335 battles
6 hours ago, MidnightPhoenix07 said:

And I remember reading something about Oklahoma getting Mass/Georgia/Ohio secondary dispersion and reload.

 

5 hours ago, SaiIor_Moon said:

don't remember reading that, but if that's true, well at least it has SOMETHING going for it,

Half true, maybe.  I recall the initial reveal devblog saying something about improved secondaries.  That said, if they are improved it's definitely not reload time related- data mining shows that the casemated 127mm/51 guns have their normal 7s reload, the 127mm/25 dual purpose guns their normal 4.5s reload.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
445 posts
7,863 battles
6 minutes ago, landcollector said:

 

Half true, maybe.  I recall the initial reveal devblog saying something about improved secondaries.  That said, if they are improved it's definitely not reload time related- data mining shows that the casemated 127mm/51 guns have their normal 7s reload, the 127mm/25 dual purpose guns their normal 4.5s reload.

That would be interesting at least.  But it might depend on their range, on if they can engage cruisers and destroyers at any distance where it would matter.   

like Amagi has glorious secondary guns, but their range is too short to engage targets most of the time.  When they do get close enough, they start hitting hard and often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
831
[KIA-T]
Members
2,237 posts
9,838 battles

I'm fine with a 40 second, or even 50 second reload on my main battery if it has the stats to make those salvos worth it.
I think people have gotten too used to the sub-30second reloads enjoyed by BBs based off those threads.
However I do wonder if those battleships you've nerfed the reload actually have the statistics to balance that elevator wait time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,112
[TARK]
Members
7,331 posts
2,821 battles

Ah, so Oklahoma will be another Mikoyan...a port queen to make sure it doesnt drop out of a supercontainer.

Always nice to see WG hasnt changed from being the miserly grandpa.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
87
[RST]
[RST]
Beta Testers
167 posts
9,887 battles
14 hours ago, Rouxi said:

Can I preemptively get a refund on the Oklahoma cause that ship looks like garbage. I mean who thought a 40s reload on trash guns was a good idea?

The Oklahoma is the sister ship of the Arizona - she should KEEP her 34s reload.  wth with the 40s?  Scared she might be OP for a T5 BB?  Gimme a break.  

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,110
[WOLFC]
Members
2,153 posts
10,518 battles
27 minutes ago, Mustang2209 said:

The Oklahoma is the sister ship of the Arizona - she should KEEP her 34s reload.  wth with the 40s?  Scared she might be OP for a T5 BB?  Gimme a break.  

Oklahoma was the second of the Nevada-class battleships. Arizona was the second member of the Pennsylvania-class that followed, so it is perfectly reasonable that Oklahoma would be tier V. The Nevada class has the same number of guns as the preceding New York-class ships also at tier V (10 x 14”), but the guns are concentrated fore and aft (two triple and two twin turrets) vs having a turret amidships. I’m not certain what the firing angles on the guns are, but this likely means she can much more easily bring all her weapons to bear without showing as much broadside as NY and Texas, and can fire five guns without showing any side at all. In fact, no other tier V battleship with ten guns has their guns in this arrangement. I suspect this is a big part of the reason behind the recent reload  change.

Edited by Nevermore135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×