Montana or Iowa Bugged?

[salival007]

Now i'm the first to admit I'm not the greatest captain to ever sail the seas, however, after a few games now under the belt in Battles I couldn't help but notice my new Montana ship hugely under performing despite its alleged armor, and huge HP boost. The guns are fine, its ability to take a hit however, is non existent, as I shall try argue.

 

So i've devised a fairly simple test that I would like you all to try out yourselves and share your results in order to test the Montana armor, specifically HE rounds.

Step 1. Is download and install Aslains Mod pack and install the Training battles.

Step 2. Select any ship you wish to play as, and then add in a Montana, and any other equivalent Tier BB to test it against. 

Step 3. Sail over to the Montana broadside, approximately 6KM - 7KM out depending on secondaries (make sure they cannot hit).

Step 4. Open fire on the superstructure and surrounding and record your results.

 

My results as follows:

First test firing using an Iowa, I didn't count fires as I didn't think I would prove anything substantial, however the results then led me to further testing.

1st Place Iowa: 47 Hits received

2nd Place Montana: 37 Hits received

 

Second test firing using a New Mexico

1st Place Iowa: 42 Hits received, 6 fires 

2nd Place North Carolina: 36 Hits received, 2 fires 

3rd Place Montana: 33 Hits received, 5 fires

 

Now I admit the tests are crude and not in a controlled enviroment, a lot of RNG takes place with random fires, accuracy, aiming. However, an Iowa receives the most hits, the most fires, has less HP, yet it is the hardest to sink. Riddle me that!

 

Also a Yamato test would be nice, just to determine if it is the Iowa outperforming other BB's, or Montana under performing. 

 

Thanks for your help.

 

 

[Lert]

Angle better.

[Rabbican]

Iowa superstructure (main tower) is bugged and takes little to no damage that is why it is over performing the Montana, test it yourself.

[salival007]

Angle better.

 

It's a test? There are no angles.

[56Bravo]

There is no substantial armor on the superstructure.  A little clarity on what exactly you are trying to prove about armor by firing HE against the least armored portion of a ship would be nice.

[Compassghost]

This isn't an armor test. An armor test would be firing at the armor.

[Lert]

 

It's a test? There are no angles.

 

Montana's armor works when angled properly. So, angle better. Your test is not representative of combat performance.

[Hereticus2142]

Personal experience with the OP,  He knows his Montanna pretty damn well,  he knows how to play.

[Yasenpoi]

 

Iowa superstructure (main tower) is bugged and takes little to no damage that is why it is over performing the Montana, test it yourself.

 

yup think thats what is going on.  Its really annoying to fight against and should be fixed.

[salival007]

There is no substantial armor on the superstructure.  A little clarity on what exactly you are trying to prove about armor by firing HE against the least armored portion of a ship would be nice.

Its likely not so much the armor rather than the damage model I suppose, something about the Montana lends itself to massive 6K HE hits regularly. I assumed it was armor based off of playing Iowa first, which i'm told is bugged.

Iowa superstructure (main tower) is bugged and takes little to no damage that is why it is over performing the Montana, test it yourself.

That explains it, and you can clearly see I tested it myself and saw the same outcome.

[OhnoesFroz]

HE damages the modules in relatively unarmored places (AA guns on deck, for example) and generally does good and consistent damage when hitting anywhere that AP would overpen (superstructure, outside the citadel). So armor's not really being a factor here unless the HE round is fired at a low angle and hits the belt armor at the waterline (which would likely be a citadel hit for AP, but should result in 0 damage for HE because HE won't pen the armor). A long distance plunging HE round is also unlikely to penetrate the citadel, but should deal damage to nearby modules/structures if it hits the deck.

[Strike_Witch_Tomoko]

This isn't an armor test. An armor test would be firing at the armor.

 

correct.

this isn't an armor test

 

its a burning test.  seeing how long it takes to burn stuff if they sit there flat on without repairing or angling or trying to dodge fire(or return fire)

 

so honestly...useless data

[salival007]

HE damages the modules in relatively unarmored places (AA guns on deck, for example) and generally does good and consistent damage when hitting anywhere that AP would overpen (superstructure, outside the citadel). So armor's not really being a factor here unless the HE round is fired at a low angle and hits the belt armor at the waterline (which would likely be a citadel hit for AP, but should result in 0 damage for HE because HE won't pen the armor). A long distance plunging HE round is also unlikely to penetrate the citadel, but should deal damage to nearby modules/structures if it hits the deck.

 

In the test it was apparent that nothing stops the modules being hit en mass. It is like having the key to the citadel but just hitting the superstructure for 6k a salvo.

In the Montana health pool, all HP feels available to be taken from the superstructure, so its like a complete bypass to its armor. Meet a Zao or Des Moines or even a Mogami and it can take 1/2 the HP very fast, now imagine 2 or 3 ships firing.

[salival007]

 

correct.

this isn't an armor test

 

its a burning test.  seeing how long it takes to burn stuff if they sit there flat on without repairing or angling or trying to dodge fire(or return fire)

 

so honestly...useless data

 

Well feel free to try fire HE and not set a fire. Ha ha ha... 

[OhnoesFroz]

 

In the test it was apparent that nothing stops the modules being hit en mass. It is like having the key to the citadel but just hitting the superstructure for 6k a salvo.

In the Montana health pool, all HP feels available to be taken from the superstructure, so its like a complete bypass to its armor. Meet a Zao or Des Moines or even a Mogami and it can take 1/2 the HP very fast, now imagine 2 or 3 ships firing.

 

I believe you're correct that all HP can be taken from the superstructure/unarmored hull sections, but I feel like modules (AA, secondaries, etc) only take damage until they're destroyed.

 

So while HE damage from prolonged fire might have some diminishing returns, HE in the current environment seems to be able to sink a ship by never penetrating the armor.

 

However, this isn't a problem with armor. Armor is acting as it should and preventing penetration into the citadel. Other than that, draw conclusions as you will.

[Strike_Witch_Tomoko]

 

Well feel free to try fire HE and not set a fire. Ha ha ha... 

 

try having fire or HE do that dmg in an actual game where they moving, angling, firing back(aka you have to angle)   and actually repairign fire dmg.

 

its like lining up 4 BBs and havign a DD take its sweet time torping them one by one.

the DD is going to do a ton of dmg. cause the BBs aren't moving or shooting back.

heck you could shoot each BB once, have flooding do max dmg. and then shoot again to continue addign flooding dmg to make flooding dmg look like its insanely high

 

but in the end, the result is that the data is useless due to the BB not moving, dodging, repairing the flood, or shooting back.

 

 

you can maximize any dmg of any type (Citadel, AP, HE, fire, torp, flooding) on glorified targets that sit there not responding as a player (or bot) would.

 

 

 

However, this isn't a problem with armor. Armor is acting as it should and preventing penetration into the citadel. Other than that, draw conclusions as you will.

except for cruisers xD

 

an HE round from a BB or a 203mm cruiser can citadel hit certain light armor cruisers (Furutaka and Yubari being main examples)

[Rotary_Rocket]

There is no substantial armor on the superstructure.  A little clarity on what exactly you are trying to prove about armor by firing HE against the least armored portion of a ship would be nice.

 

The only important area of the superstructure is  the conning tower, which is encased in 17" thick steel...

[salival007]

 

try having fire or HE do that dmg in an actual game where they moving, angling, firing back(aka you have to angle)   and actually repairign fire dmg.

 

its like lining up 4 BBs and havign a DD take its sweet time torping them one by one.

the DD is going to do a ton of dmg. cause the BBs aren't moving or shooting back.

heck you could shoot each BB once, have flooding do max dmg. and then shoot again to continue addign flooding dmg to make flooding dmg look like its insanely high

 

but in the end, the result is that the data is useless due to the BB not moving, dodging, repairing the flood, or shooting back.

 

 

you can maximize any dmg of any type (Citadel, AP, HE, fire, torp, flooding) on glorified targets that sit there not responding as a player (or bot) would.

 

Does the Iowa take more hits, the answer is yes. Repairing fires or not is completely irrelevant, angling is irrelevant. I've asked for more tests to validate my results so its no fluke, however you're being unhelpful. I've only heard whispers of the Iowa being bugged, but wouldn't it be nice to see some more conclusive evidence for once? So many people think this is a learn to play, but its not even playing, its testing ships capabilities before taking it into battle. 

[Compassghost]

The easiest way to test this is with Atlanta guns. Saturated fire and hit count. That being said, I'm still not sure what we are testing

[salival007]

The easiest way to test this is with Atlanta guns. Saturated fire and hit count. That being said, I'm still not sure what we are testing

 

Yeah I didn't have a cruiser line to test with, I'd really like to see results on Iowa vs Montana, proving the Iowa is bugged. Montana vs Yamato, as they should be closely even. This would conclude that Iowa requires fixing, and can now be backed up by a little bit of data. Or maybe we're all just beta testers who wanted to play the game early, and don't play these ships so don't really care.

[Strike_Witch_Tomoko]

The easiest way to test this is with Atlanta guns. Saturated fire and hit count. That being said, I'm still not sure what we are testing

 

apparently the OP is testing which ship can take more hits before dying.

ignoring the RNG aspect of the game (RNG dmg of HE shells, as well as dispertion for where the shells hit)

the max dmg to armor section of dmg (aka fire all shells at front of ship and dmg decreases compared to if you spread dmg out)

the differing armor values of the game (like if he shot Iowa only in the belt. and then Montanta everywhere except the belt)

 

and so on.

 

i think OP is working on the assumption that upgrading from a lower tier to a higher tier means everything is better with no downsides. (keeping in mind Montana trades some armor for torpedo belt line.  focusing less on the middle of the ship, and more on the ship overall)

[SweetRollThief]

Good post salival. Let me know if u want any help with more testing. Also, we need to divison more often

 

[salival007]

 

apparently the OP is testing which ship can take more hits before dying.

ignoring the RNG aspect of the game (RNG dmg of HE shells, as well as dispertion for where the shells hit)

the max dmg to armor section of dmg (aka fire all shells at front of ship and dmg decreases compared to if you spread dmg out)

the differing armor values of the game (like if he shot Iowa only in the belt. and then Montanta everywhere except the belt)

 

and so on.

 

i think OP is working on the assumption that upgrading from a lower tier to a higher tier means everything is better with no downsides.

 

 Incorrect, I don't understand your motives, i'm trying to help test the game, you're being disrespectful, and I still invite you to add to the discussion with accurate information.

[Strike_Witch_Tomoko]

 

 Incorrect, I don't understand your motives, i'm trying to help test the game, you're being disrespectful, and I still invite you to add to the discussion with accurate information.

 

if you want to test armor on the ships. use AP

 

HE is RNG reliant and so not reliable for measuring dmg other than "dmg and no dmg". (as unless you hit something like the armor belt or turret. its going to deal some dmg with BB caliber guns)

heck, using a cruiser with HE is more reliable for testing armor as alot of the areas on a BB are so strong HE wont dmg.   hence the advice to test with atlanta

 

AP, with its overpen, bounce, and penetration mechanics is superior for testign armor models.

bounce = no dmg

overpen = around 1k dmg

pen = around 3k dmg

 

also. keep in mind, that unlike the Iowa with its 287mm citadel

Montana armors its citadel with 409mm. hence the deck armor being a tad weaker

[MikeCMyers]

Came across this video and it does seem like Iowa is taking a significant amount of HE hits without taking any damage after a while. A bit odd if you ask me.