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

The Iowa

37 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

19
[SAPP]
Members
97 posts
8,618 battles

Just a question.  I have not seen the Iowa much for the last year or two.  All of a sudden, I see many people playing her.  Any reason for this?  I decided to dust mine off and take her for a spin tonight.  Many are better but she's still fun to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,836
[SIDE]
Members
4,939 posts

Hmm. Guess I didnt notice. Seems to be same number as always. The last BB line released was Russian. I suppose it would figure that a lot of BB drivers were spending time grinding it. That was a year ago though. I don't know man. May e somebody can dig up a few snapshots on Iowa games played the last few quarters ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,281
[WORX]
Members
11,438 posts
19,183 battles
11 minutes ago, IRISHSDOWN said:

Any reason for this?  I decided to dust mine off and take her for a spin tonight.  Many are better but she's still fun to play.

You should take her out for a spin in celebration, her state and her rules/laws... Give the adv. in yesterdays ceremonies...

Spoiler

I am being discrete for a reason... Its a gaming forum... But yes take her out...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,723
[PQUOD]
[PQUOD]
Members
4,803 posts
16,952 battles

Iowa’s is a good boat. Recommend going artillery plotting room for better grouping. Her 16” rifles punch anything sitting broadside to her. She doesn’t have the rudder shift of the NC but she’s faster, better range, high velocity AP. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
136
[LSNB]
Members
192 posts
6,052 battles

Only thing I can think of is Flamu releasing a video on the Iowa recently, saying that it was better than the Minnesota.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,801
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
13,673 posts
1 hour ago, IRISHSDOWN said:

Just a question.  I have not seen the Iowa much for the last year or two.  All of a sudden, I see many people playing her.  Any reason for this?  I decided to dust mine off and take her for a spin tonight.  Many are better but she's still fun to play.

In my opinion, the tier IXs of WOWS are ships to grind past as quickly as possible on your way to the tier Xs. It's not that the tier IXs are bad per se, it's just that they generally find themselves in tier X matches anyway and if you are going to play in a tier X match then why not play a tier X ship? The only tech-tree tier IX I kept was the Fletcher but I only play it in tier IX events. If I want to play a fast tier IX BB then I play the Georgia, which I got for coal in the armory. The tier Xs can mount better economic permacamo too. 

Edited by Snargfargle
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,656
[-K-]
Members
8,491 posts
14,883 battles
2 hours ago, dagger1013 said:

Only thing I can think of is Flamu releasing a video on the Iowa recently, saying that it was better than the Minnesota.

Yes.  Likely many comparing the two T9 brethren to each other I'd think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
294 posts
3,450 battles

Certainly a shame that they aren't more common, such and awesome and gorgeous ship

 

I'd say its my favourite ship hands down and best I've unlocked so far

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
151
[ALLY]
Members
336 posts
19,448 battles
3 hours ago, dagger1013 said:

Only thing I can think of is Flamu releasing a video on the Iowa recently, saying that it was better than the Minnesota.

Not to sound like a youngster "OMG Flamu went out on a limb on that one!"

C130 signing out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
828
[KIA-T]
Members
2,237 posts
9,838 battles

Entirely anecdotal is anecdotal.

Likely if anything, because the US BB split appeared and reminded them of the original line.

 

4 hours ago, dagger1013 said:

Only thing I can think of is Flamu releasing a video on the Iowa recently, saying that it was better than the Minnesota.

What a '#/#;'ing useless video.

Minnesota is one of the worst T8 battleships, sharing the same position as Kansas who is one of the worst T7 bbs.
These ships are straight up outtiered, reverse-musashis, who would even bother comparing them to a competent vessel like Iowa.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
465
[FOXY]
Members
1,197 posts
5,458 battles
7 minutes ago, Akeno017 said:

Entirely anecdotal is anecdotal.

Likely if anything, because the US BB split appeared and reminded them of the original line.

 

What a '#/#;'ing useless video.

Minnesota is one of the worst T8 battleships, sharing the same position as Kansas who is one of the worst T7 bbs.
These ships are straight up outtiered, reverse-musashis, who would even bother comparing them to a competent vessel like Iowa.

Someone making a point maybe? its supposed to be a tier 9, it needs to be compared to other tier 9 BBs, same with the Kansas and other tier 8 BBs.

 

personally im using the Iowa because i just got the thing, and its stock as are all my tier 9s but the Minnie, Roon and Pomm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
65
[PVE]
Members
377 posts
3,136 battles

It's that time of the year.  Perhaps they are some grinding them out for the Montana.  Flakes and such are just around the corner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,420 posts
40,773 battles
10 hours ago, Snargfargle said:

In my opinion, the tier IXs of WOWS are ships to grind past as quickly as possible on your way to the tier Xs. It's not that the tier IXs are bad per se, it's just that they generally find themselves in tier X matches anyway and if you are going to play in a tier X match then why not play a tier X ship? The only tech-tree tier IX I kept was the Fletcher but I only play it in tier IX events. If I want to play a fast tier IX BB then I play the Georgia, which I got for coal in the armory. The tier Xs can mount better economic permacamo too. 

You can get good economics, but that is just credits, but an uptiered 9 always gets more credits over time. And that uptier disadvantage is great for XP.

At tier 10, it's a level field, but at 9, you can get uptiered and get better XP returns for attacking a tier 10 ship and it attacks you.

This is exactly why Missouri and Musashi are so successful. Although, WG made the Missouri pay out more credits than some and it's why it earned the name ATM. Tier 9's thrive on being uptiered. It is to their advantage if the ship is good.

 

Edited by SteelRain_Rifleman
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
760
[--V--]
Members
1,459 posts
13,765 battles
5 hours ago, Snargfargle said:

In my opinion, the tier IXs of WOWS are ships to grind past as quickly as possible on your way to the tier Xs. It's not that the tier IXs are bad per se, it's just that they generally find themselves in tier X matches anyway and if you are going to play in a tier X match then why not play a tier X ship? The only tech-tree tier IX I kept was the Fletcher but I only play it in tier IX events. If I want to play a fast tier IX BB then I play the Georgia, which I got for coal in the armory. The tier Xs can mount better economic permacamo too. 

 ^^^ This.

I keep all my Tech Tree ships, but of the T9s, which ones do I go back and play occasionally? 

Fletcher, Roon and Izumo (yes, I actually like her)    That's about it.

Playing Iowa right now cause did the Research Bureau thing on American line.  I never like playing the Iowa and not really sure why.  I guess because she's a one trick pony.  16" guns.    Prefer the Mass or Ga which have better secondaries.  Not a fan of sitting in the back, bow in, trying to snipe.  Boring to me.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
257
[HOT]
Members
268 posts
7,838 battles
23 minutes ago, SeaborneSumo said:

 ^^^ This.

I keep all my Tech Tree ships, but of the T9s, which ones do I go back and play occasionally? 

Fletcher, Roon and Izumo (yes, I actually like her)    That's about it.

Playing Iowa right now cause did the Research Bureau thing on American line.  I never like playing the Iowa and not really sure why.  I guess because she's a one trick pony.  16" guns.    Prefer the Mass or Ga which have better secondaries.  Not a fan of sitting in the back, bow in, trying to snipe.  Boring to me.

iowa isnt a sniper but it can be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,313
[0456]
Members
3,824 posts
10,091 battles

Nevermind. Phone [edited] up my formatting and not worth fixing. 

Edited by _ENO_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
828
[KIA-T]
Members
2,237 posts
9,838 battles
4 hours ago, Princess_Daystar said:

Someone making a point maybe? its supposed to be a tier 9, it needs to be compared to other tier 9 BBs, same with the Kansas and other tier 8 BBs.

I feel that point is better made by comparing it to ships that are equal or similiar to its strength.

When Kansas is so atrociously bad that she has outright worse gunnery then a Colorado, that tells me alot clearer that she is a poor performing T8 then comparing her to a NC.
It's like Musashi, she appears strong when compared to like-tier competitors, but once you compare her to Yamato and realise how close she is in performance does it show how absurd that strength at T9 is.
Kansas in her current form belongs at T7, and needs substantial buffs in shell performance/accuracy to attempt to outperform the Colorado. A ship with almost the same DPM but far better accuracy and a tier lower.

I haven't played Mini-soda, but just based off Kansas and her in-port stats. I'd be highly surprised if she didn't turn out as one of the weaker ships when compared to T8 battleships, ships once again a full tier lower.

Kansas DPM: 212,400
Colorado DPM: 198,400
Kansas Sigma: 1.5
Colorado Sigma: 2.0
Same DPM, but Colorado will put far more shells on target with much more target opportunities due to her reload.
 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
238
[GOCRY]
Members
635 posts

Ahem, it’s pronounced Minne-slow-ta.

Stage 5 of the 5Epochs campaign has an Iowa mission, and I bet a lot of people are up to that one.

  • Funny 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,327
[SALVO]
Members
2,517 posts
6,683 battles
16 minutes ago, Akeno017 said:

I feel that point is better made by comparing it to ships that are equal or similiar to its strength.

When Kansas is so atrociously bad that she has outright worse gunnery then a Colorado, that tells me alot clearer that she is a poor performing T8 then comparing her to a NC.
It's like Musashi, she appears strong when compared to like-tier competitors, but once you compare her to Yamato and realise how close she is in performance does it show how absurd that strength at T9 is.
Kansas in her current form belongs at T7, and needs substantial buffs in shell performance/accuracy to attempt to outperform the Colorado. A ship with almost the same DPM but far better accuracy and a tier lower.

I haven't played Mini-soda, but just based off Kansas and her in-port stats. I'd be highly surprised if she didn't turn out as one of the weaker ships when compared to T8 battleships, ships once again a full tier lower.

Kansas DPM: 212,400
Colorado DPM: 198,400
Kansas Sigma: 1.5
Colorado Sigma: 2.0
Same DPM, but Colorado will put far more shells on target with much more target opportunities due to her reload.
 

What Kansas and the new BBs in general need is not a gun buff.  While that maybe simpler what they really need a big time survivability buff. Buff their armor and make them more fire resistant or something like that.  This way they are slow and inaccurate but also hard to kill. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,836
[SIDE]
Members
4,939 posts
22 minutes ago, eviltane said:

What Kansas and the new BBs in general need is not a gun buff.  While that maybe simpler what they really need a big time survivability buff. Buff their armor and make them more fire resistant or something like that.  This way they are slow and inaccurate but also hard to kill. 

I have about 50 games in mine. 

It's shocking to play after running around in something fast like Le Fantastic or even similar type like Alabama. However if you start out in Kansas or play a 5-10 game stretch in it you get accustomed to its slow speed. You never get used to the reload, the horrible sigma and the crazy constant-randomness of overpens and ricochets.

I've done pretty well in Kansas since figuring it out. I won't bore you with methods and strategies. I will offer an opinion...

This boat doesn't need speed. It's a simple full throttle affair until it's time to dance. It kites and dances very well.

It doesn't need armor. It wouldn't hurt but it isn't needed. Has plenty as-is and it's easily multiplied by angling and sit awareness.

This boat desperately needs a concealment buff. It has huge bloom, can't flex map and limited self defense. Give it 11-12km conceal to sneak in close or go dark with more buffer room to spare.

This boat desperately needs dispersion buffed. The reload sucks bad but I can work with it. I can't do anything about 12 shells bracketing broadside ships 14km except wait the better part of a minute to probably get 1-2 hits. So 24 shells for 2-3 hits at mid range. Nonsense.

The shells are too darn floaty, spread out too far, slow down way too freaking much and need some attention paid to there unpredictable damage. Whatever combination of speed, bleed, trajectory, krup, shell weight, etc WarGaming settled on FLAT OUT SUCKS. FIX IT.

About this slow, with reloads this long darn sure better hit and hurt things a lot more reliably or there is very little worth caring about here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
465
[FOXY]
Members
1,197 posts
5,458 battles
38 minutes ago, eviltane said:

What Kansas and the new BBs in general need is not a gun buff.  While that maybe simpler what they really need a big time survivability buff. Buff their armor and make them more fire resistant or something like that.  This way they are slow and inaccurate but also hard to kill.  

Having the weakest Colorado shells at tier 8 and 9 is just laughable, they shatter so easily. Further, they definitely need buffs to their gunnery if they are going to be slow moving targets, and even with an armor buff that is what they will be, they need to have the gunnery to make up for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,836
[SIDE]
Members
4,939 posts
41 minutes ago, eviltane said:

What Kansas and the new BBs in general need is not a gun buff.  While that maybe simpler what they really need a big time survivability buff. Buff their armor and make them more fire resistant or something like that.  This way they are slow and inaccurate but also hard to kill. 

I have about 50 games in mine. 

It's shocking to play after running around in something fast like Le Fantastic or even similar type like Alabama. However if you start out in Kansas or play a 5-10 game stretch in it you get accustomed to its slow speed. You never get used to the reload, the horrible sigma and the crazy constant-randomness of overpens and ricochets.

I've done pretty well in Kansas since figuring it out. I won't bore you with methods and strategies. I will offer an opinion...

This boat doesn't need speed. It's a simple full throttle affair until it's time to dance. It kites and dances very well.

It doesn't need armor. It wouldn't hurt but it isn't needed. Has plenty as-is and it's easily multiplied by angling and sit awareness.

This boat desperately needs a concealment buff. It has huge bloom, can't flex map and limited self defense. Give it 11-12km conceal to sneak in close or go dark with more buffer room to spare.

This boat desperately needs dispersion buffed. The reload sucks bad but I can work with it. I can't do anything about 12 shells bracketing broadside ships 14km except wait the better part of a minute to probably get 1-2 hits. So 24 shells for 2-3 hits at mid range. Nonsense.

The shells are too darn floaty, spread out too far, slow down way too freaking much and need some attention paid to there unpredictable damage. Whatever combination of speed, bleed, trajectory, krup, shell weight, etc WarGaming settled on FLAT OUT SUCKS. FIX IT.

A boat this slow, with reloads this long darn sure better hit more often and hurt things  more reliably or there is very little worth caring about here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
338
[WOLFC]
Members
513 posts
7,420 battles

Another possibility: One of the final missions in the Epoch of the Navy campaign requires 100k damage from either Montana, Iowa, Sovetsky Soyuz, or Alsace. Given the likelihood that someone in the NA playerbase when up the USN tree first, that might have something to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,903
[WOLFG]
Members
30,718 posts
9,292 battles
12 hours ago, Snargfargle said:

 The only tech-tree tier IX I kept was the Fletcher but I only play it in tier IX events.

I'll be keeping mine too, as well as Kitakaze. TBH, looking ahead, I don't think I really care to get Gearing or Harugumo.

I know what you mean about the BBs though. Georgia, Pommern, and Musashi are all better than their tech tree counterparts IMO, even before you factor in their special status. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×