Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
The_Big_Woof

USS OKLAHOMA.

35 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

34
[WARGS]
Members
27 posts
23,515 battles

For years now, I have begged and waited for the USS Nevada. As a Naval and history buff, I was impressed with history of this ship and felt she should be represented. Instead, we get the USS Oklahoma. Same class, but was sank at Pearl Harbor and not rebuilt.. Well, alright. But after watching no less than 3 reviews, which all basically said the same thing, I am very disappointed. With a speed of only 19 knots, it will struggle to outrun random jelly fish, much less two or three cruisers who will easily spam it to death. IJN Kongo has both longer range, higher speed, and a faster reload, despite being an older, albeit updated ship. A New York should not have too much of a problem either. and these are same tier ships. Once she is bottom tiered, she will be totally outclassed.

Next, what is with the reload speed of 40 seconds? What is the crew doing? Making the rounds from scratch? Scooping powder into the bags individually in between firings? Was the ship not able to meet manpower requirements before sailing so that each battery is only 50% manned? I am not asking for a super ship, or a Over Powered ship capable of going on a rampage every trip out if played decently (Massachusetts). I mean we get Paper "researched" ships or "estimated projected" ships that are recognized as OP ships (Kremlin and Thunderer). Why this?

Which leads to my third point. In my opinion, most of the player base wants ships that are easy; easy to win with, survivable, cause a lot of damage. Ships that fall short of this are constantly referred to as trash and garbage. (I play a lot and hear it a lot). So why make a ship that only a few niches are even going to want? A collector will want it, a history buff will want it, and those who like taking a "meh" ship out and trying to make it work. The majority of the player base.. well they are going to see it on the line up and groan since it will distinctly be regarded as a liability from the outset much like they do when the Match Making Monitor tells them that they have a "BAD PLAYER" on their team. 

I am trying to keep an open mind, and take the "good points" that the CCs who reviews I watched tried to present, but so far I can only come up with one word: DISSAPOINTMENT

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,061
[GWG]
Members
7,212 posts
13,971 battles

Some of us just want it for the History Buff aspect.

The Nevada and Pennsylvania might be along someday...  As will the Maryland and Tennessee.

Maybe we can even get the 'Pearl Harbor under Attack' port (like Dunkirk)...

There are lots of possibilities for this game.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,103
[FOXEH]
Banned
14,364 posts
19,953 battles
11 minutes ago, AVR_Project said:

There are lots of possibilities for this game.

And I'm sure we'll see each and every one WG somehow figures out some way to make a buck off of!

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
483
[KERN]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
1,277 posts
7,094 battles

As it is we're throwing garbage fantasy ships unto tech trees and making actual historical ships Premiums.  This is the reverse of how this game was supposed to be. 

 

And what the [edited] is that color scheme on Oklahoma?  I mean. she was known for some wild camo at times, but I've never seen this before.  Couldn't we have done, say, this one?

 

 

USS_Oklahoma_BB-37[1].jpg

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
319
[WOLF7]
Members
456 posts
16 minutes ago, thegreenbaron said:

As it is we're throwing garbage fantasy ships unto tech trees and making actual historical ships Premiums.  This is the reverse of how this game was supposed to be. 

 

And what the [edited] is that color scheme on Oklahoma?  I mean. she was known for some wild camo at times, but I've never seen this before.  Couldn't we have done, say, this one?

 

 

USS_Oklahoma_BB-37[1].jpg

The premium camo for New York looks like that. Seems like it would have been relatively simple to adapt it for Oklahoma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,946
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,776 posts
712 battles

Why doesn't it have the same reload and shell performance as the Arizona? It's literally the same shell being fired from the same gun with the same shell-handling equipment. 

 

That makes absolutely no sense at all. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
160
[TFFOX]
Members
794 posts
1,582 battles
44 minutes ago, ramp4ge said:

Why doesn't it have the same reload and shell performance as the Arizona? It's literally the same shell being fired from the same gun with the same shell-handling equipment. 

 

That makes absolutely no sense at all. 

because if wg is going to make it so everyone can get a "free" premium ship, then theyre gonna make it suck BIG TIME

  • Cool 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,946
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,776 posts
712 battles
1 minute ago, AdmiralFox08 said:

because if wg is going to make it so everyone can get a "free" premium ship, then theyre gonna make it suck BIG TIME

 

How do you even get it? I'd pay Texas money for it if it were in the shop, terrible or not, simply because the Nevada-class is my favorite of the Standards. 

 

Also the fact that they gave us Oklahoma instead of Nevada tells me they have plans for Nevada and Pennsylvania as tech tree ships. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
160
[TFFOX]
Members
794 posts
1,582 battles
Just now, ramp4ge said:

 

How do you even get it? I'd pay Texas money for it if it were in the shop, terrible or not, simply because the Nevada-class is my favorite of the Standards. 

 

Also the fact that they gave us Oklahoma instead of Nevada tells me they have plans for Nevada and Pennsylvania as tech tree ships. 

you get it from completing the new "always courageous" collection. nevada might be interesting, and pennsylvenia would be a tech tree Arizona

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,946
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,776 posts
712 battles
2 minutes ago, AdmiralFox08 said:

you get it from completing the new "always courageous" collection. nevada might be interesting, and pennsylvenia would be a tech tree Arizona

 

Yes, Pennsylvania would likely be a tier 6 since it's very similar to New Mexico, except New Mexico gets a slight edge in firepower because of 14"/50 guns. Could easily make up for that in other soft stats.

 

Nevada would likely be at tier 5 but really, you have to be careful with that one because the Nevada would be better than the New York in pretty much every way. Nevada's almost a tier 5.5 ship. Which SORT OF explains why they nerfed Oklahoma, but they nerfed her way too hard. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
160
[TFFOX]
Members
794 posts
1,582 battles
1 minute ago, ramp4ge said:

 

Yes, Pennsylvania would likely be a tier 6 since it's very similar to New Mexico, except New Mexico gets a slight edge in firepower because of 14"/50 guns. Could easily make up for that in other soft stats.

 

Nevada would likely be at tier 5 but really, you have to be careful with that one because the Nevada would be better than the New York in pretty much every way. Nevada's almost a tier 5.5 ship. Which SORT OF explains why they nerfed Oklahoma, but they nerfed her way too hard. 

if they come up w/ a t7 BB, then they could extend the new line to start with NV at t5, but no one would play it unless you had the option to go to either NC or Kansas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,946
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,776 posts
712 battles

It'd actually be pretty easy to do another line.

 

Nevada at 5

Pennsylvania at 6

Modernized Tennessee (basically un-nerfed California, but Tennessee herself) at 7

 

Then pick up at 8 with their Modernized Sodak20s at 8/9 and their Tilman at 10.

 

Kansas needs 16"/50s though. All the Sodak20s were supposed to get 16"/50s.

 

Then you throw the Lexingtons in there somewhere for kicks. I would say make them tier 8 or 9 "supercruisers" just to piss people off but that's dumb. Maybe tier 6 or tier 7. They'd have epic guns for their tier but they'd be absolute paper-thin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,061
[GWG]
Members
7,212 posts
13,971 battles
7 hours ago, ramp4ge said:

It'd actually be pretty easy to do another line.

 

Nevada at 5

Pennsylvania at 6

Modernized Tennessee (basically un-nerfed California, but Tennessee herself) at 7

 

Then pick up at 8 with their Modernized Sodak20s at 8/9 and their Tilman at 10.

 

Kansas needs 16"/50s though. All the Sodak20s were supposed to get 16"/50s.

 

Then you throw the Lexingtons in there somewhere for kicks. I would say make them tier 8 or 9 "supercruisers" just to piss people off but that's dumb. Maybe tier 6 or tier 7. They'd have epic guns for their tier but they'd be absolute paper-thin.

They already spoiled the US-BB T8-T10 line with the paper botes.  Would have been nice to have the South Dakota (real one) at T8.   But NooOOOooo...   NooooOOOooOOooo...   NoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOo..
 

 

Edited by AVR_Project

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,946
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,776 posts
712 battles

Well, the tier 10 is a paper boat but the 8 and 9 aren't really. All 6 of the Sodak20s were actually laid down. Incomplete, yes. Paper? Not really. 

 

South Dakota (BB-57) herself as a tech tree ship would be kind of gimped due to the fact that she only carried 8 of the 5"/38 mounts instead of 10 like the rest of the class, as she used the additional displacement for flagship previsions. So she'd actually be worse than Massachusetts in that regard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
99
[OO7]
Beta Testers
476 posts
11,145 battles

Ship is complete Trash. Armor sucks, Guns suck.. i feel they can't pen another BB worth a dam. The reload is god aweful.  Very disappointing. 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,061
[GWG]
Members
7,212 posts
13,971 battles
On 11/15/2020 at 8:58 PM, Neighbor_Kid said:

Ship is complete Trash. Armor sucks, Guns suck.. i feel they can't pen another BB worth a dam. The reload is god aweful.  Very disappointing. 

But it looks nice...   I have two of them now.  One in each account.

11_19_20_Oklahoma_A.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43
[CUDA]
Members
119 posts
6,924 battles

With such a slow reload they should really give us the Perth spotter plane instead of the standard.  that would give us 4 long range volleys instead of 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
957
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,289 posts
12,974 battles
On 11/6/2020 at 2:18 PM, ramp4ge said:

Why doesn't it have the same reload and shell performance as the Arizona? It's literally the same shell being fired from the same gun with the same shell-handling equipment. 

 

That makes absolutely no sense at all. 

Because Arizona is actually firing too fast, Reload on the 14"/45 cal was between 34 seconds, and 48 seconds. The triple mounts shared the left side shell hoist with the center gun, so they're probably the slower ROF.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,946
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,776 posts
712 battles
57 minutes ago, SgtBeltfed said:

Because Arizona is actually firing too fast, Reload on the 14"/45 cal was between 34 seconds, and 48 seconds. The triple mounts shared the left side shell hoist with the center gun, so they're probably the slower ROF.

 

Arizona already has a 35 second reload.

 

I don't think they shared shell hoists in the turret itself. There were 2 shell hoists from the magazine to the shell handling room but as I understand it each gun had it's own shell hoist and powder hoist.

 

NUFwlvu.jpg

 

Along with the description:

 

The projectile hoists, one for each gun, are located to the rear of each gun compartment, on the center line of the gun, and extend from the lower shell flat to the shelf plate of the tur­ret.


These designs are hydraulic ram-type tubular lifts of rack and pawl arrangement.
The out­board hoists are alike but to the opposite hand.
Their courses are vertical from the lower end to the pan floor, and then slope rearward 16°40' to the cradle.
The course of the center hoist is straight all the way, nearly vertical.
All cradles are aligned between their respective rammers and guns and when open extend the rammer track, at gun loading angle, from the rammer housing to the breech.
Functionally all hoists are alike. Each operates to raise or to lower projectiles by equal stages.
The transmission is hydraulic, an electric motor driving an A-end through a reduction gear.
The operating oil pressure from the A-end (there is no I3-end in this installation) functions to lift or to lower a full projectile load and is controlled by the adjusted spring loads of the relief valve assembly.

 

I cannot imagine the turret crew trying to wrestle a 1,500 pound AP shell around in the turret to get it from another gun's shell hoist to a gun without a shell hoist, and then trying to get that shell into a position where the ram could actually load it, bar an emergency. I don't even know if they could do that because the guns are in separate partitions. 

 

So with the shell handling room acting as a sort of 'ready rack', yeah, after a period of sustained fire you could be bottlenecked by the two hoists from the magazine feeding three hoists to the guns, but the game doesn't model that for any ship. 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
624
[UN1]
Members
1,280 posts
3,934 battles
On 10/27/2020 at 6:44 PM, The_Big_Woof said:

For years now, I have begged and waited for the USS Nevada. As a Naval and history buff, I was impressed with history of this ship and felt she should be represented. Instead, we get the USS Oklahoma. Same class, but was sank at Pearl Harbor and not rebuilt.. Well, alright. But after watching no less than 3 reviews, which all basically said the same thing, I am very disappointed. With a speed of only 19 knots, it will struggle to outrun random jelly fish, much less two or three cruisers who will easily spam it to death. IJN Kongo has both longer range, higher speed, and a faster reload, despite being an older, albeit updated ship. A New York should not have too much of a problem either. and these are same tier ships. Once she is bottom tiered, she will be totally outclassed.

Next, what is with the reload speed of 40 seconds? What is the crew doing? Making the rounds from scratch? Scooping powder into the bags individually in between firings? Was the ship not able to meet manpower requirements before sailing so that each battery is only 50% manned? I am not asking for a super ship, or a Over Powered ship capable of going on a rampage every trip out if played decently (Massachusetts). I mean we get Paper "researched" ships or "estimated projected" ships that are recognized as OP ships (Kremlin and Thunderer). Why this?

Which leads to my third point. In my opinion, most of the player base wants ships that are easy; easy to win with, survivable, cause a lot of damage. Ships that fall short of this are constantly referred to as trash and garbage. (I play a lot and hear it a lot). So why make a ship that only a few niches are even going to want? A collector will want it, a history buff will want it, and those who like taking a "meh" ship out and trying to make it work. The majority of the player base.. well they are going to see it on the line up and groan since it will distinctly be regarded as a liability from the outset much like they do when the Match Making Monitor tells them that they have a "BAD PLAYER" on their team. 

I am trying to keep an open mind, and take the "good points" that the CCs who reviews I watched tried to present, but so far I can only come up with one word: DISSAPOINTMENT

Players generally want ships that are versatile, or at least have weaknesses that they have tactile control over, like Russian ships. WG likes ships with more pronounced strengths and weaknesses. Massa, Georgia, Alaska, Thunderer are all very versatile and able to perform in various metas. This makes for generally easy gameplay as you always have tools to use at your disposal. 

Oklahoma is strong and super fun inside her secondary range, but absolute trash outside of that. And with your insanely slow speed, you have no control over that. That's why players don't like it. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[T_M_F]
Members
9 posts
6,207 battles

40 sec reload is ridiculous what is your main issue with US battle ships? i have read the devastating power that it had at 30 sec. stop it you made it way to squishy to drag it down with that reload speed along with 19kn who does this fire them.

Just tiresome guys.

welcome to the service jonnie here is a bazooka that clears a grid in one shot but it only shoot 3 feet...good luck.

And she would sail at 20.5 knots lets fix it. also the King George had the same guns. does it have a 40sec reload in the game? granted the actual fire time is 1.25 or1.75 for a two rounds shot

per min depending on the modification but you do not run actual times on a lot of ships in the game so why this one?  What the games King George fire at 25 sec. Whhhhaaaaattttt..

Edited by DamitJimImaGamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
957
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,289 posts
12,974 battles
15 hours ago, ramp4ge said:

 

Arizona already has a 35 second reload.

 

I don't think they shared shell hoists in the turret itself. There were 2 shell hoists from the magazine to the shell handling room but as I understand it each gun had it's own shell hoist and powder hoist.

 

NUFwlvu.jpg

 

Along with the description:

 

 

 

 

I cannot imagine the turret crew trying to wrestle a 1,500 pound AP shell around in the turret to get it from another gun's shell hoist to a gun without a shell hoist, and then trying to get that shell into a position where the ram could actually load it, bar an emergency. I don't even know if they could do that because the guns are in separate partitions. 

 

So with the shell handling room acting as a sort of 'ready rack', yeah, after a period of sustained fire you could be bottlenecked by the two hoists from the magazine feeding three hoists to the guns, but the game doesn't model that for any ship. 

 

 

It would depend on what the exact setup is,  If two guns are sharing a shell hoist it usually means that hoist comes up between the loading trays and can feed either left or right. 

It wouldn't surprise me if on the triple 14"/45 gun turrets, the shell hoists run between the guns, with the left hand gun feeding from the right, and both the center and right hand guns feeding from the left.

The triple 14"/50 gun turrets after rebuilds had a shell hoist per gun, which looks like what's pictured above.

But regardless, WG generally picks whatever historic number seems to make sense to them and then tweaks it from there. Yamato's rate of fire, like anything with fixed loading angle guns, varied with range because of how long it takes to elevate and depress the guns. Every gun in game has all angle loading, and a fixed rate of fire. I suspect that Oklahoma's long reload is because she's got 25% more guns available over the forward arc as compared to Texas and New York.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
99
[OO7]
Beta Testers
476 posts
11,145 battles

I'm having no issues with the reload and strength of the newly released tech tree battleships. They hit hard, and are pretty consistent. So why did the Okie get screwed on it's penetration combined with an awful reload. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×