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

Oklahoma: Rodgers and Hammernerfed?

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

14,954
[ARGSY]
Members
23,002 posts
17,027 battles

I have to preface this one by saying that I like the mid-tier US Standards and the Kansas is really starting to grow on me, so I didn't have the negative bias about the Oklahoma that a lot of others do.

I also managed to get all the collection pieces without buying any crates, so this ship is in my port for freebies.

What speed she has, she seems to get up to quickly. She's not as difficult to manoeuvre as some. Even the gunnery feels unexpectedly good.

The only thing I don't like about this ship is what happens (or rather, all too often doesn't happen) when the AP shells finally arrive on target.

Unfortunately, that's the biggest part of actually taking her into the fight.

I can sort of understand why they pulled that back at the last minute and gave her some of the oldest and worst US BB shells in the game, but I think they swung too far towards trying to avoid an OP monster they would later have to withdraw from availability (especially since she's destined to be a coal freebie sometime next year).

It feels to me that she shoots too straight to just be given Arizona/Texas ammo loadouts and call it a day, but IMHO some gradual buffs to her shell performance are seriously in order.

 

(Technically it was possible to get her for free, as I did, and so it will be when the crates go into the Armory for coal next year. They could use that excuse to do what they wanted to her, but they knew some people at least would whale the crates to get her immediately and that puts her in the same no-nerf rule set as any other paid premium.)

Edited by Ensign_Cthulhu
  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
632
[SVF]
Members
1,802 posts
2,335 battles
18 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

She shoots too straight to just be given Arizona/Texas ammo loadouts and call it a day,

???

She has the same dispersion formula and sigma as Texas, so that's just your perception not what's really happening.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,164
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
14,181 posts
18 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Oklahoma

The only thing I don't like about this ship is what happens (or rather, all too often doesn't happen) when the AP shells finally arrive on target.

I got the Oklahoma and didn't do anything but play the game normally. I wasn't even trying for it. I took it out twice and found that the AP was essentially worthless. It was only after this that I read a review of the ship and found out why. Is the HE any better? I don't know. I'll have to play a couple of games and get back to you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,954
[ARGSY]
Members
23,002 posts
17,027 battles
17 minutes ago, landcollector said:

???

She has the same dispersion formula and sigma as Texas, so that's just your perception not what's really happening.

I'm quite prepared to concede that, and I've altered that sentence to reflect my subjectivity.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,979
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
13,192 posts

There is no RU bias, just a desire instead to stomp on Amerikanski ships. Is that what I'm hearing here? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,954
[ARGSY]
Members
23,002 posts
17,027 battles
25 minutes ago, Herr_Reitz said:

There is no RU bias, just a desire instead to stomp on Amerikanski ships. Is that what I'm hearing here? 

No, I'm saying they had legitimate concerns and inadvertently went too far in attempting to address them.

If you want to claim it was deliberate and/or malicious policy that's your right, but you won't find me agreeing with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,482
[WKY04]
Members
3,860 posts
24,507 battles

The horrid pen combined with the ability to spec for secondaries make it the American line's surrey with the fringe on top. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,954
[ARGSY]
Members
23,002 posts
17,027 battles
1 minute ago, Pugilistic said:

The horrid pen combined with the ability to spec for secondaries make it the American line's surrey with the fringe on top. 

I am currently suffering through the Surrey and wondering what I'm doing wrong. Devonshire was a real pleasure. Surrey is a Cornish pasty filled with haggis that was left to soak for three weeks in warm Irn-Bru, but you're starving so what do you do? :cap_haloween:

I'm actually finding the OK to be LESS frustrating!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,164
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
14,181 posts

I have to admit that I'm not enjoying the Oklahoma. I was just in a match and was dominated by tier IV ships. The Oklahoma's very slow rate of fire and terrible AP means that a cruiser can burn you to the waterline before you can do much damage to it. I haven't been up against one yet but I'm pretty sure that a tier IV Kaiser would dominate a tier V Oklahoma in a brawl. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,316
[WOLFC]
Members
2,435 posts
10,804 battles
1 hour ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

No, I'm saying they had legitimate concerns and inadvertently went too far in attempting to address them.

This is my thinking as well. Another thing to consider is that 10 gun BBs with an all super-firing arrangement are rare at tier V (GC is the only one that comes to mind) so that may have been something they were considering as well. I would not be surprised if (way) down the road she gets either a small reload buff OR better shells.

Edited by Nevermore135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,964 posts
14,386 battles

It's AP pen is truely woeful against BBs. It pops cruisers just as good as any other BB in that tier. In the 28 games Ive played, I know Ive had plenty of opportunities to shoot at broadside BBs; but have only seen 2 cits (1 on a oddly angled Nelson). Lots of cits on cruisers. Here are my current results. 

 

meh.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,979
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
13,192 posts
5 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

No, I'm saying they had legitimate concerns and inadvertently went too far in attempting to address them.

If you want to claim it was deliberate and/or malicious policy that's your right, but you won't find me agreeing with you.

Well all in all, they have an extremely long record of hammering the Bee Gees out of a ship when all it needed was a minor tweak here and there. Think of the history. 

How much sweeter it would have been for them to at least hit the lumber they want to drive the nail through instead of their thumbs, toes or other private areas? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,940
[A-I-M]
Members
3,771 posts
14,724 battles
2 hours ago, Herr_Reitz said:

How much sweeter it would have been for them to at least hit the lumber they want to drive the nail through instead of their thumbs, toes or other private areas? 

Small target needs a big hammer to be sure to hit it.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,392
[INTEL]
Members
13,459 posts
38,066 battles
9 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

I have to preface this one by saying that I like the mid-tier US Standards and the Kansas is really starting to grow on me, so I didn't have the negative bias about the Oklahoma that a lot of others do.

I also managed to get all the collection pieces without buying any crates, so this ship is in my port for freebies.

What speed she has, she seems to get up to quickly. She's not as difficult to manoeuvre as some. Even the gunnery feels unexpectedly good.

The only thing I don't like about this ship is what happens (or rather, all too often doesn't happen) when the AP shells finally arrive on target.

 

The armor is surprisingly good. I can punch holes in other T5 BBs with GC, but multiple salvos at close range did no more than pen. I would have dev struck a PV or a GC. Unfortunately it reloads too slow to be a serious threat in a brawl. Didn't feel any of the secondary legendariness either....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,758
[SALVO]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,150 posts
6,230 battles

Sneaking suspicion that West Virginia 44 is gonna be a secondary build...

You have snipers and you have "brawlers" 

I ran a Mass CO in Oklahoma and had a blast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,101
[4HIM]
Members
3,245 posts
14,648 battles
20 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

I have to preface this one by saying that I like the mid-tier US Standards and the Kansas is really starting to grow on me, so I didn't have the negative bias about the Oklahoma that a lot of others do.

I like the Standards, at their tier.  Heck, I think my most played ship is still the Texas.  But in a one on one, a Texas would slaughter the OK.  The only thing OK gains vs the Texas are superfiring turrets.  For that it gives up:

  • Speed
  • Rate of fire
  • AP shell pen

If they plan to make this a coal ship in the future, they're going to need to give is SOME type of buff.  Otherwise I can't see this being a viable purchase.  Even for coal.  Not even sure I'd pay Charleston levels of coal for it as it currently stands.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,082
[WOLF3]
Members
29,592 posts
25,666 battles

The only thing standard with these new USN BBs is how much they all suck.

 

What I am amazed about is not a few sucking out of a bunch.  It's how bad they all are.

 

That takes focus.  It's like they all just had to be terrible for the sake of one supposedly decent one:  Vermont

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,082
[WOLF3]
Members
29,592 posts
25,666 battles
6 hours ago, Dr_Venture said:

Sneaking suspicion that West Virginia 44 is gonna be a secondary build...

You have snipers and you have "brawlers" 

I ran a Mass CO in Oklahoma and had a blast

Nobody's going to be scared of a 21kt brawler in Tier VIII.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×