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

American Battleships first impressions.

40 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

382
[KTFO]
Beta Testers
532 posts
21,036 battles

Okay, I know a lot of us are in love with our American battleships, I for one love the agility.  The problem I have is with the guns.  A little research goes a long way.  In the game some ships have a maximum range unmodified of less than 14 km at Tier 6 this puts those very slow ships at a severe disadvantage, especially against the Fuso.  Everyone says just close with them and in one respect I completely agree, however, after a little research I found that the 14 inch guns of the American battleships in game were able to vastly out range the game.  Yes I know that WG calls the in game range the maximum effective range but a greater than 50% decrease in range in order to be effective?  Not so sure about that.

 

The American 14inch guns were capable of firing not the14km like in the game, not even 20 km but were actually able to fire over 30kms over DOUBLE the max range in game thanks to the 30 degrees of gun elevation implemented during 10 years prior to the war.  Even before they improved the gun elevation these guns were able to shoot further than 23km.

 

In addition to range far exceeding what we see in the game their main asset was their "astonishing accuracy" and outstanding lack of shot dispersion at long ranges.

 

I would love to see Wargaming tighten up these battleships a bit.  Now about the tactics,  Most people will simply say American BBs are brawlers,  I am not sure where they get that idea since their good agility still isn't good enough to dodge shots at less than 10km, the armor is no better than their Japanese counterparts and the American guns actually reload slower than the comparative Japanese battleships at tier 5 and 6 not to mention the weedy secondary armament at tier 5 and 6 on the American battleships.  An issue I have with the "close with the enemy" mentality is that really isn't possible if the enemy Japanese battleship is not distracted by another fight and is halfway competent.  Ocean map is a  perfect example.  Tier 6 New Mexico vs a Kongo.  I ended up just being kited to death while he kept me in excess of 18km (great tactics on his part) and there was absolutely nothing I could do.  This is where the inaccuracy of wargamings 14/45 gun model lets us down.  If the correct range was used it would be possible to hit the Kongo at nearly his maximum effective range even if wargaming gave the American battleships a conservative 18km unmodified max effective range (50% of their maximum range). 

 

Finally.  The New York class of battleships came with 2 torpedo tubes in the early hulls.  Where are they?  I am also not going to get in to why the American guns do much less damage than their like sized counterparts in the 16inch class.  Why does the Iowa, a ship many say were better overall, than the Yamato class, given FAR less damage than the Amagi or even the Nagato when the American 16inch guns were only 4mm smaller (406mm vs the Nagato's 410mm) but were 500lbs heavier and had armor penetration values nearly the same as the Yamato's 18' monster cannons?

Edited by BigDaddy_BoomBoom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,472 posts
1,030 battles

I think the reason was already explained as to why guns have different ranges.

There was that long thread on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
382
[KTFO]
Beta Testers
532 posts
21,036 battles

I think the reason was already explained as to why guns have different ranges.

There was that long thread on it.

 

Yes, it has to do with the guns effective range but as I stated the American 14"/45 guns showed great accuracy and shot dispersion at well over 23km so surely their effective range should be nearer to that and not the less than 14km as on the New Mexico.  Another point, the 16" gun used on the Iowa class battleship had a range of 39km however in the game its max range is only 21.2 only about 50% of its maximum range.  Surely the effective range should be more than half of its maximum range if thats the case why make a gun that can shoot that far in the first place.
Edited by BigDaddy_BoomBoom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
635
[CHASE]
Beta Testers
1,810 posts
6,062 battles

 

Yes, it has to do with the guns effective range but as I stated the American 14"/45 guns showed great accuracy and shot dispersion at well over 23km so surely their effective range should be nearer to that and not the less than 14km as on the New Mexico.

It would give the US BBs the advantage though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
242
[CRANE]
Alpha Tester
9,505 posts
3,688 battles

About all I can comment on here is regarding the torpedo tubes on the BB's. Regardless of how good/bad the US battleships are compared to the IJN counterparts, if the earlier US battleships got torpedoes, they'd need to model torpedoes on almost all the early Japanese BB's as well. So everything except the Yamato and maybe also the tier 9 ship (can never remember the name)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
382
[KTFO]
Beta Testers
532 posts
21,036 battles

I TOTALLY agree about balancing.  No one wants either the American bbs or the Japanese to easily overpower the other, however, right now the American BBs with their slow speeds, slower reloads, less AAA, less secondary firepower, far shorter range and less damage cant be balanced by giving them a better turning circle that only helps at longer ranges when dodging shots.  Something needs to be done to the American BBs to make them more balanced in game vs their like tier japanese counterparts because as it sits now I would take a Kongo, a tier lower, over a New Mexico anyday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
483
[KERN]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
1,277 posts
7,096 battles

 

Yes, it has to do with the guns effective range

 

NO. IT. DOES. NOT.

 

God, tired of hearing this repeated.  As the devs explained, it has to do with the height of the telemeter above the water line.  That's it.  It's how WG set up the line of sight.  They tied LOS to the gun range, and that's all.  Texas 'effective range' was 22km, according to the gunnery manual.  But because WG does not want RADAR in game as it would *edited*  all over STRONK SOVIET COMRADE SHIPS the US has to deal with only being allowed to fire as far as the eye could see through the telemeter.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
382
[KTFO]
Beta Testers
532 posts
21,036 battles

 

NO. IT. DOES. NOT.

 

God, tired of hearing this repeated.  As the devs explained, it has to do with the height of the telemeter above the water line.  That's it.  It's how WG set up the line of sight.  They tied LOS to the gun range, and that's all.  Texas 'effective range' was 22km, according to the gunnery manual.  But because WG does not want RADAR in game as it would *edited*  all over STRONK SOVIET COMRADE SHIPS the US has to deal with only being allowed to fire as far as the eye could see through the telemeter.

 

The Nagatos guns had exactly the same maximum range as the 16" of the Iowa class 38km but has 30km effective range in real life.  The Yamato in game actually has a longer effective range than it had in real life (25km real life 26km in game).  So either the Yamato has a 300 foot mast for its sights or thats a load of bunk from Wargaming.  I am not saying the Americans should outrange the Japanese but to have 33% shorter range than comparable Japanese ships in game when in real life their guns were comparable just doesn't seem right.

 

 

 

Edited by BigDaddy_BoomBoom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,868
[GUTS]
[GUTS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,383 posts
29,431 battles

They are still "testing" the American BB'S. 

If game data does not show how they expect the class to perform,  they will fix it.

The fix may not sit well with us "Merica" people, but this is a game.

Just keep constructive I'm puts on how you feel they play, and they will look into it.

 

So far, in 4 weeks playing, I feel the game developers are being very fair in their attempt to balance the play and thus. Give us a fun game.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,198 posts
2,732 battles

It would give the US BBs the advantage though.

You forget that IJN have the speed advantage so even if US BB's had a 1km or 2km advantage they can easily escape from slower US BB's while US BB's can't.

 

Personally here's what needs to happen if WG is gonna stick to IJN being sniper BB's

1. Nerf IJN HP Pool

2. Nerf IJN Damage Potential 

3. Nerf IJN ROF

4. Buff US Turret turn time

5. Buff US secondaries 

6. Buff US Dispersion

7. Buff weaker ranges on specific US BB's

8. Remove the range mod

 

Personally 2 and 3 can be swapped with each other and you could even give them more damage but make ROF painful if you miss. Honestly not all this has to happen to each IJN/US BB ship but at some tiers the IJN BB's isn't remotely balanced compared to there american counter part... cough kongo cough

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
382
[KTFO]
Beta Testers
532 posts
21,036 battles

They are still "testing" the American BB'S. 

If game data does not show how they expect the class to perform,  they will fix it.

The fix may not sit well with us "Merica" people, but this is a game.

Just keep constructive I'm puts on how you feel they play, and they will look into it.

 

So far, in 4 weeks playing, I feel the game developers are being very fair in their attempt to balance the play and thus. Give us a fun game.

 

You are absolutely right, the last thing I want is for this to turn into a flame war.  It was my first impressions of the American BBs. 

 

And yes, just look at the New Mexico class when you first get it.  Its like a myogi nearly with 1 cook standing at the railing with a pistol. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
382
[KTFO]
Beta Testers
532 posts
21,036 battles

You forget that IJN have the speed advantage so even if US BB's had a 1km or 2km advantage they can easily escape from slower US BB's while US BB's can't.

 

Personally here's what needs to happen if WG is gonna stick to IJN being sniper BB's

1. Nerf IJN HP Pool

2. Nerf IJN Damage Potential 

3. Nerf IJN ROF

4. Buff US Turret turn time

5. Buff US secondaries 

6. Buff US Dispersion

7. Buff weaker ranges on specific US BB's

8. Remove the range mod

 

Personally 2 and 3 can be swapped with each other and you could even give them more damage but make ROF painful if you miss. Honestly not all this has to happen to each IJN/US BB ship but at some tiers the IJN BB's isn't remotely balanced compared to there american counter part... cough kongo cough

 

 

 

Last thing I would ever call for is nerfs.  Just give the ships accurate (as best as possible) stats.  And figure out some way of implementing the use of Radar on American BBs which gave them a big advantage at long ranges.  Maybe tighten the in game dispersion a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39
[T_D_F]
Beta Testers
173 posts
16,992 battles

 

NO. IT. DOES. NOT.

 

God, tired of hearing this repeated.  As the devs explained, it has to do with the height of the telemeter above the water line.  That's it.  It's how WG set up the line of sight.  They tied LOS to the gun range, and that's all.  Texas 'effective range' was 22km, according to the gunnery manual.  But because WG does not want RADAR in game as it would *edited*  all over STRONK SOVIET COMRADE SHIPS the US has to deal with only being allowed to fire as far as the eye could see through the telemeter.

 

This in a game that provides range upgrades. It's an arbitrary limit, and I don't think they've balanced the American BB's very well. At least not the mid-tier ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27
[GSG]
Members
215 posts
3,456 battles

I currently do not use World of Warships (missed the deadline to get an alpha testing key) but I have been actively viewing the videos of some of the famous youtubers who are playing this like TheMightyJingles.  I was quite shocked to see that the South Dakota Class battleship was not among the recent additions to the game!  Would I be right to presume that they are coming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
11,668 posts

 

We can  presume what is not there will either be given an alternative branch later on, or end up as paid premiums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,921
Alpha Tester, Alpha Tester
11,461 posts
1,963 battles

Finally.  The New York class of battleships came with 2 torpedo tubes in the early hulls.  Where are they?  I am also not going to get in to why the American guns do much less damage than their like sized counterparts in the 16inch class.  Why does the Iowa, a ship many say were better overall, than the Yamato class

Battleships don't get torpedo tubes, and WG don't like fixed torpedo tubes either.

The US 14" guns fire less TNT equivalent per shell, so less damage per shell.

Same for the non-superheavy 16" shells.

The Iowa is inferior to Yamato when you exclude radar. Like the game does. Which is why Iowa is a tier 9 and Yamato is tier 10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
490
[VRR]
Beta Testers
1,141 posts
3,878 battles

The guns range NEEDS to be buffed to what it is with the range mod, sure keep it shorter than the IJN's if they want them to be a bit brawly and even with the mod you still do lack the range to range the IJN BBs if they hang back at extreme range but at least the disparity won't be so HUGE that you NEED to buy the mod to even be remotely competitive.

 

The gun damage needs to be made at least similar, or they need to buff the health of some of the ships to make them similar (Upping the Colorado's for example) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,458 posts
9,137 battles

Iam of the other opinion. I would take the New Mexico over the Kongo. I definitely prefer the mobility of New Mexico over Kongo's gun range.
 

The only USN BB I have issues with is Colorado. A slight buff in the Colorado's, ROF for the main batteries, would be nice. Or maybe tighten
main battery shell dispersion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,243 posts
1,579 battles

Battleships don't get torpedo tubes, and WG don't like fixed torpedo tubes either.

The US 14" guns fire less TNT equivalent per shell, so less damage per shell.

Same for the non-superheavy 16" shells.

The Iowa is inferior to Yamato when you exclude radar. Like the game does. Which is why Iowa is a tier 9 and Yamato is tier 10.

 

Effective armor (which would require modeling tolerances and quality of the steel) are very comparable between the Yamato and Iowa with Iowa being the second best armored warship of WWII, although yes with how the game models things Iowa is an inferior ship save for speed..  As for the 16" shells you can clearly see the difference in-game between Colorado doing less damage than the IJN 16" guns and North Carolina, Iowa, and Montana doing more damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
271 posts
3,462 battles

Buff the range on the V,VI, and VII BB to what they are with range mod installed. Dispersion needs to get buffed quite a bit too. Range mod and accuracy mod should be available to both the US and Japanese BB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,198 posts
2,732 battles

Iam of the other opinion. I would take the New Mexico over the Kongo. I definitely prefer the mobility of New Mexico over Kongo's gun range.

 

The only USN BB I have issues with is Colorado. A slight buff in the Colorado's, ROF for the main batteries, would be nice. Or maybe tighten

main battery shell dispersion.

Kongo T5 ship still blows T6 New Mexico out of water seriously not only does Kongo have a huge range advantage she also has big speed advantage as well. The IJN BB's are flat out superior ships mid tier there's nothing an American BB's can do better than there counter parts besides 

worthless maneuverability.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
382
[KTFO]
Beta Testers
532 posts
21,036 battles

Battleships don't get torpedo tubes, and WG don't like fixed torpedo tubes either.

The US 14" guns fire less TNT equivalent per shell, so less damage per shell.

Same for the non-superheavy 16" shells.

The Iowa is inferior to Yamato when you exclude radar. Like the game does. Which is why Iowa is a tier 9 and Yamato is tier 10.

 

Armor piercing shells carry no high explosives they are a solid plug of metal so I can see the American HE doing less damage but definitely not the AP.   That is all mute anyway since after looking back at it the Nagato class got a slight damage nerf it appears and actually does do less than the Iowa class.  Also the American super heavy shell travels at nearly the same FPS as the Japanese standard shell (only 100 ft per second less) but weighs 500 pounds more.  More mass at same speed equals more kinetic energy equals more damage.  I never thought to make the Iowa equal to the Yamato, there is no getting around that mass, extra armor and monster guns so I think they were right in their tiering there.

The Americans SHOULD get a dispersion buff over the Japanese ships to simulate the use of radar though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
401
Beta Testers
1,520 posts
187 battles

 

Armor piercing shells carry no high explosives they are a solid plug of metal.

 

Naval AP shells carry an explosive charge...
Edited by Noth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×