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

Atago: Kind of Sucks?

26 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

300
Beta Testers
783 posts
4,031 battles

Sluggish in a turn.

 

Seems inaccurate compared to US cruisers.

 

Very low muzzle velocity, makes aiming a challenge.

 

Apparently made out of beer cans and citadels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,007 posts
317 battles

Demand your money back a make a big deal out of it

 

Because murica.

 

obvioussarcasmisobvious

Edited by Carrier_Enterprise
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
92 posts
1,386 battles

I consider it a great joy to play and a excellent money making prem. Yeah, it kinda iffy on the guns and totally sucks in the AAA department, but hey, its a prem. Its not been to the best!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39,257
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
27,715 posts
26,569 battles

I really like my Atago. Yeah she turns sluggish but she's a joy to drive, with useful torpedo launch envelopes and decent guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Banned
3,836 posts

Sluggish in a turn.

 

Seems inaccurate compared to US cruisers.

 

Very low muzzle velocity, makes aiming a challenge.

 

Apparently made out of beer cans and citadels.

 

i love it

 

hp,

armor(against HE)

range(for a cruiser)

turrets(fair number. good calibur. its a mogami)

and epic torps(16 torps.  with good arcs)

and her shot dispersion is great!

 

put together she's not a BB.  but she's a fkin epic ship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
219
[VO_0V]
Alpha Tester
427 posts
681 battles

Loving my Atago. Even in losing matches I see 2k xp and 400-500k credits on this beasty. It makes things go boom.

 

2015-06-26_0034_zpskwhvjhx9.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
234 posts
1,967 battles

No idea why they named it the Atago, instead of the Takao.  Takao is the historical name of the ship/class.  Unless some hidden russian documents say otherwise.....

 

 

Edited by Fog_Carrier_Intrepid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts

No idea why they named it the Atago, instead of the Takao.  Takao is the historical name of the ship/class.  Unless some hidden russian documents say otherwise.....

 

 

 

Probably a reason to put the Takao as a normal ship into the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
234 posts
1,967 battles

 

Probably a reason to put the Takao as a normal ship into the game. 

 

Are you telling me they are thinking of adding multiple of the same type of ships to the game, with a mere name as difference?  What in the unholy hell... :ohmy:

 

I mean, this COULD work if some of the same class ships had different fittings (See Kuma/KTKM), but from what I can see/read the Takao and Atago had the exact same outfittings and modernizations.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
115 posts
3,806 battles

 

Are you telling me they are thinking of adding multiple of the same type of ships to the game, with a mere name as difference?  What in the unholy hell... :ohmy:

 

I mean, this COULD work if some of the same class ships had different fittings (See Kuma/KTKM), but from what I can see/read the Takao and Atago had the exact same outfittings and modernizations.  

 

The Takao/Atago were refit with much MUCH more AA late war than what the Atago has now.  It is going to be the same with the Bismark/Tirpitz.  The Bismark premium will be its 1941 configuration, while the Bismark-class will have the Tirpitz late-war hull mods (much heavier AA), or at least I assume.  They cannot fit another BB for Germany at tier 8 besides the Bismark class anyways.

 

I don't see an issue with Takao being a ship you can research.

Edited by SpenzOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
14,008 posts
5,814 battles

Are you telling me they are thinking of adding multiple of the same type of ships to the game, with a mere name as difference?  What in the unholy hell... :ohmy:

 

I mean, this COULD work if some of the same class ships had different fittings (See Kuma/KTKM), but from what I can see/read the Takao and Atago had the exact same outfittings and modernizations.  

 

*gasp* Wargaming adding premium vehicles which are very similar or identical to normal tech tree vehicles? Surely not! It's not like they've ever done this in WoT! ...no wait, hold on a sec...oh... [sarcasm] 

 

You must be new to Wargaming.:trollface:

 

 

Takao will probably be a normal ship in a second cruiser branch later on. And I suspect it's going to have upgrades which make it better than Atago such as significantly beefed up AA. My own suspicions why Atago suddenly turned up are thus:

1. WG already had the finished model laying around and ready to go. It was one of the earliest ships in alpha test.

2. There's a lot of AoBS/Kancolle/general Takao class cruiser fans who were getting impatient.

3. WG want some money

4. The underperforming KTKM was being pulled for a refit, and WG needed something in a hurry to replace her as Japan's premium ship for OBT/release to stand alongside Atlanta.

 

Not that I mind since it's one sexy beast. And unlike the Kitakami which played more like a fat destroyer, Atago plays very similarly to the existing IJN cruiser line from tier 6 upwards. So it's a great captain trainer for the IJN cruiser line, and if a player can do well with Myoko then they can do well with Atago.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
29 posts
6,148 battles

Sluggish in a turn.

 

Seems inaccurate compared to US cruisers.

 

Very low muzzle velocity, makes aiming a challenge.

 

Apparently made out of beer cans and citadels.

 

I love mine. Its my favorite ship! i have had great battles in it. Its a great vessel, well balanced and fitted. I think you just need to try and use a different ship. Or do what Carrier_Enterprise
said.
Edited by Die_Republikaner

Share this post


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

 

 

Yeah it seems like they might implement a split tree branch that goes like Aoba -> Takao -> Tone -> Ibuki or Aoba -> Tone -> Takao -> Ibuki, that will go parallel with Aoba -> Myoko -> Mogami -> Ibuki.    Or plan a revision to the branch like Aoba -> Myoko -> Takao -> Ibuki and Aoba -> Tone -> Mogami -> Ibuki.  Seeems to me Myoko -> Takao seems a more logical evolution.

 

Slow turn is due to the ship's  beam, length, and superstructure overweight.  

Edited by Eisennagel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
528
[ERN]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
1,322 posts

No idea why they named it the Atago, instead of the Takao.  Takao is the historical name of the ship/class.  Unless some hidden russian documents say otherwise.....

 

 

 

Premiums are usually named after specific ships, while tree ships are named after the classes themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
300
Beta Testers
783 posts
4,031 battles

Right now, you're only getting paired with other Atagos and some Sims. The few matches I've had in the Atago have very much been cripple fights. The strange dispersion and low velocity make ranging in this ship a chore. When you do hit, though, the Atago will citadel or crit much of the time.

 

Having gone to T10 with US cruisers in CBT, I can say without any doubt that US cruisers from T8 and above have the upper hand vs the Atago. Why can't a premium ship at the very least be a little better than its tier -- and not inferior? This is an expensive pren.

Share this post


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

Right now, you're only getting paired with other Atagos and some Sims. The few matches I've had in the Atago have very much been cripple fights. The strange dispersion and low velocity make ranging in this ship a chore. When you do hit, though, the Atago will citadel or crit much of the time.

 

Having gone to T10 with US cruisers in CBT, I can say without any doubt that US cruisers from T8 and above have the upper hand vs the Atago. Why can't a premium ship at the very least be a little better than its tier -- and not inferior? This is an expensive pren.

Premium ships are supposed to be better than bone stock ships of their tier, and worse than upgraded ones. Something I think the Atago will be once people get to the Mogami again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[10DNB]
Beta Testers
32 posts
2,475 battles

 

2. There's a lot of AoBS/Kancolle/general Takao class cruiser fans who were getting impatient.

 

 

:trollface: :izmena: Did anyone call me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
365
[RSRC]
Beta Testers
1,258 posts
9,265 battles

Premium ships are supposed to be better than bone stock ships of their tier, and worse than upgraded ones. Something I think the Atago will be once people get to the Mogami again

 

The problem is, once the Mogami gets common again, you'll see A LOT of these threads. Mogami is insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
120
[NET]
Beta Testers
630 posts
8,581 battles

turns fine with the steering mod. if your coming over from american cruisers then ya, it'll feel a little weak but all in all its a good cruiser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,313 posts
12,709 battles

203's on the Atago same as the 203's on the Mogami? (except fire a bit slower)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39,257
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
27,715 posts
26,569 battles

Atago uses 203 mm/50 3rd Year Type Mod. E

Mogami uses 203 mm/50 3rd Year Type Mod. E

 

So, yes, they have the same 203mm guns. However, Atago's turn slightly faster and fire a bit further, but Mogami's guns are a bit more accurate and fire .2 rpm faster. All this information is available in the game.

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.

×