Is the Montana worth getting?

[LifePilgrim]

I've unlocked the Montana today. Still have to grind about 10 million credits to buy her. Is she worth getting?

 

I don't have the will to grind from Amagi to Yamato although I love the Yamato.

[pmgaudio]

this thread will look an awful lot like>:

 

 

 

[Gaishu_Isshoku]

A lot of people will probably tell you no, but I actually love mine. The extra belt armor makes her a lot more resistant to anything not a Yamato, which is often an issue for Iowa anyways, and the extra three guns makes up for a lot of the accuracy issues. Nothing like some good ole volume of firepower

 

Anyways, NC/Iowa/Montana are apparently getting some buffs in 5.6, like a higher top speed for Iowa/Montana and improved dispersion across the board, so that'll be nice.

[Grunt_Pro]

I have run extensive tests on both the Yamato, and the Montana in training rooms, testing things like turret resilience to different types of shells, belt armor, deck armor, HE, fire...

 

The Yamato is a better ship on all fronts.  

 

My opinion, she isn't worth getting. Especially with how the meta is with DD spam at higher tiers.  Not only are you hard countered by all the DDs, but also the 2 Yamatos in each match.  Not to mention most of the cruisers as well.

[Gaishu_Isshoku]

I have run extensive tests on both the Yamato, and the Montana in training rooms, testing things like turret resilience to different types of shells, belt armor, deck armor, HE, fire...

 

The Yamato is a better ship on all fronts.  

 

My opinion, she isn't worth getting. Especially with how the meta is with DD spam at higher tiers.  Not only are you hard countered by all the DDs, but also the 2 Yamatos in each match.  Not to mention most of the cruisers as well.

 

Yamato is definitely, undeniably a better ship at the moment. I won't disagree with that and hopefully the situation changes with the buffs coming in 0.5.6. My reasoning for her being worth getting from the Iowa is that the disadvantages a Montana faces against a Yamato are much less pronounced than the ones faced by Iowa and Montana is much better suited than Iowa is for dealing with anything not a Yamato. 

[Grunt_Pro]

 

Yamato is definitely, undeniably a better ship at the moment. I won't disagree with that and hopefully the situation changes with the buffs coming in 0.5.6. My reasoning for her being worth getting from the Iowa is that the disadvantages a Montana faces against a Yamato are much less pronounced than the ones faced by Iowa and Montana is much better suited than Iowa is for dealing with anything not a Yamato. 

 

Fair enough.  I personally actually like my Iowa far more than my Montana.  Why?  The main reason, she is about half as heavy, meaning your acceleration and deceleration are much better.  Also, her handling is far better than the Montana.  Both the ships have the same flaws in terms of gun performance except the Montana has an extra three guns, both ships have the same flaws in terms of armor performances.  

 

BUT

 

At least the Iowa can shift around the battle and have a chance at dodge torpedo spam at T8+.  The Montana is just a sitting duck. 

[DoomStomper]

If you're still on the fence about it, I might suggest waiting until we hear exactly what the much talked about high tier USN BB buffs will entail.  Though I purchased the Iowa around the time this was announced, I've been holding off on playing her outside of a couple co-op battles since making the most of the changes might end up involving a captain re-spec and/or some different upgrades.

[Sakuzhi]

 

Yamato is definitely, undeniably a better ship at the moment. I won't disagree with that and hopefully the situation changes with the buffs coming in 0.5.6. My reasoning for her being worth getting from the Iowa is that the disadvantages a Montana faces against a Yamato are much less pronounced than the ones faced by Iowa and Montana is much better suited than Iowa is for dealing with anything not a Yamato. 

 

The biggest difference is that Volume of Fire helps deal with Cruisers. The problem with the Yamato is that it's better against Battleships which of course everyone only ever cares about what happens in a Vacuum.

 

On the other hand, the Montana can stealth build for much Troll far better than a Yamato.

[Gaishu_Isshoku]

On the other hand, the Montana can stealth build for much Troll far better than a Yamato.

No. This is objectively untrue. With full stealth build, a Yamato is detected .1km sooner than a Montana by surface ships and actually has a .2km lower air detection than Montana. For all intents and purposes, stealth build is identical for the two ships.

 

Edit: As for volume of fire, the only reason I bring it up is because of the Montana's poor accuracy. Yamato has vastly superior dispersion which makes it just as good for sinking cruisers.

[ryuukei8569]

wait for the Buffs in 5.6. Montana is workable in the absence of yamato's. However she doesnt have much in the way of usable advantages right now. Howeverr word on the street is that Montana and Iowa are getting speed boost, Montana, Iowa and North Carolina are getting accuracy and AA boosts. Hopefully if we are lucky and WG is sensible they will get rudder shift and TDS buffs as well as all three desperately need attention in that department. Yeah it is kinda bad when in some ways, i find Colorado to be more enjoyable to play that the top 3 tier US battleships, as all three are in a pretty sorry state right now. Its bad when New mexico gets a better TDS than all other US battleships, and Colorados TDS is even with montana and way better than North Carolinas or Iowas.

 

But I have to say, if you have already grinded your way through Iowa and North carolina, Montana honestly isnt appreciably worse for its tier than Iowa or North Carolina. In fact Id have to say North Carolina is the least playable of the three, while Iowa and Montana are pretty much even.
 

[Sakuzhi]

 

No. This is objectively untrue. With full stealth build, a Yamato is detected .1km sooner than a Montana by surface ships and actually has a .2km lower air detection than Montana. For all intents and purposes, stealth build is identical for the two ships.

 

Edit: As for volume of fire, the only reason I bring it up is because of the Montana's poor accuracy. Yamato has vastly superior dispersion which makes it just as good for sinking cruisers.

 Objectively Very true actually.

 

As for the Montana, 12 shots against a Cruiser is generally better.

 

And a 'vastly superior dispersion'? 

 

You want to talk about things not being objectively a thing, 296m vs 275m at max range isn't a massive change in dispersion (or if you'd rather 275m v 256m post upgrade(s)) with that being at max range.

 

Which just fyi, there's a reason you don't see TX BBs generally camp off at 23km of the enemy (20km is generally more ideal for it).

 

That and the actually vastly superior turret traverse of the Montana (which is objectively true over some other things that people claim) of 45s vs 72s base. Which is more than a little bit helpful (Seriously, the difference is night and day) when having to switch targets, turn about and/or track fast movers. 

 

 

 

Just sayin' it isn't all bad and it sounds like the 16" Cannons on the USN Battleships will be getting an improved dispersion as they finally realized that giving them a wider dispersion, as well as not allowing them to generally have the Module to decrease the dispersion is silly.

 

 

 

[Gaishu_Isshoku]

 Objectively Very true actually.

 

As for the Montana, 12 shots against a Cruiser is generally better.

 

And a 'vastly superior dispersion'? 

 

You want to talk about things not being objectively a thing, 296m vs 275m at max range isn't a massive change in dispersion (or if you'd rather 275m v 256m post upgrade(s)) with that being at max range.

 

Which just fyi, there's a reason you don't see TX BBs generally camp off at 23km of the enemy (20km is generally more ideal for it).

 

That and the actually vastly superior turret traverse of the Montana (which is objectively true over some other things that people claim) of 45s vs 72s base. Which is more than a little bit helpful (Seriously, the difference is night and day) when having to switch targets, turn about and/or track fast movers. 

 

 

 

Just sayin' it isn't all bad and it sounds like the 16" Cannons on the USN Battleships will be getting an improved dispersion as they finally realized that giving them a wider dispersion, as well as not allowing them to generally have the Module to decrease the dispersion is silly.

 

 

 

Objectively very true? For stealth build being superior on Montana? Please enlighten me as to how that .1km is going to make a huge difference.

 

The difference in dispersion is larger than the 296m vs 275m shown in game. This is because the Yamato has a max range of 26.6km, compared to the Montana's 23.3km. At 23.3km, the difference in dispersion between the two will be more in the Yamato's favor than the 21m difference shown in the stats.

[scruffycavetroll]

this thread will look an awful lot like>:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Effing classic.

[Mesrith]

And a 'vastly superior dispersion'? 

 

I agree with everything else you said (love my Montana), but dividing by ~26 instead of by ~23 for max range makes a difference.  IIRC, Yamato guns are among the most accurate battleship guns in the game when measured in dispersion/kilometer.  That's even ignoring the fact that you can't mount both accuracy reload on the Montana, as they share a slot.

[Air_0374]

They could give it the same deck armor of the Iowa, the Iowa's first layer is thick enough to not get overmatched...

[HazeGrayUnderway]

I've unlocked the Montana today. Still have to grind about 10 million credits to buy her. Is she worth getting?

 

I don't have the will to grind from Amagi to Yamato although I love the Yamato.

 

Simple question is this:  Would you rather spend the time and resources on Yamato or a Montana?

 

During the "Fast Track to Des Moines" event, I had already been sitting at Tier IX Iowa and Tier VIII Amagi.  Both with full modules, Iowa having more XPs.  With my Free XPs and Iowa's Ship XPs, I was about 48k before unlocking Montana.  My Amagi had a far longer road.  It had to go through Tier IX first.

 

What did I do?  Screw Montana, put the extra effort for Yamato instead.  If you're going to go through the trouble of having a Tier X BB, you may as well put the effort and trouble of getting the Tier X BB that has unquestioned superiority as a Battleship.  The Montana, even with 12 16"/50 guns, is full of questionable qualities.  You cannot say the same about Yamato as a Battleship.

 

Edit:  The shamefur dispray of Yamato penetrating and citadeling Montanas on the front justified my chosen route.

[Sakuzhi]

 

I agree with everything else you said (love my Montana), but dividing by ~26 instead of by ~23 for max range makes a difference.  IIRC, Yamato guns are among the most accurate battleship guns in the game when measured in dispersion/kilometer.  That's even ignoring the fact that you can't mount both accuracy reload on the Montana, as they share a slot.

 

You can't mount both of the accuracy on the Yamato either actually. As for the Range bands, somewhat true but on the other hand, can't say I find max dispersion all that useful of a stat, I'd rather know what their dispersion is at 20km, 15km and 10km where it actually matters. 

 

I haven't used the Montana a ton (believe it was 4-6 matches on the PT to test if a ninja-build is workable, the answer is yes just fyi) but it wasn't exactly difficult to hit targets out to 20km (which eh, anything beyond 20km-21km is just icing on the cake given the limited amount of time spent at said ranges). 

 

 The difference in dispersion is larger than the 296m vs 275m shown in game.

 Not as much as you claim it is. Then again that would require you to actually provide the exact dispersion at ranges that have any bearing on mattering. 

 

Which if you had that information, you would have already. 

 

 dispersion between the two will be more in the Yamato's favor than the 21m difference shown in the stats.

 First off, it isn't going to be that and I quote you "Vastly superior" even if it was a 35-40m max dispersion swing 

 

So why do you tell me how exactly even a 35 meter swing at say, 23km is a 'massively superior' value? Not exactly like you are attempting pin-point aiming at that range regardless of which Ship you prefer. 

 

I mean that'd be fair and everything. As for why I feel the Stealth build is better for the Montana over the Yamato, is while it's 'just' .1km swing, which is about as non-masssive as their dispersion values over a majority of shots. 

 

Between the two, the Yamato is generally seen as a better area-denial as well as taker of many Shots over the Montana. And it more capable of sitting bow towards enemy while not losing as much in terms of salvo throw weight (2/3s of their firepower is frontally directed over only 1/2 of the Montana's). 

 

Think of it more, perceived role and threat over actual benefit (though I'm quite certain that if you changed the concealment on a IJN by .1km the DD mafia will crapthemselves all over the forums if you'd like to know how important some people feel about it)

 

Most importantly, the Yamato has use of another Tier 5 skill over the Montana, the Manual Secondaries is actually worth it on the Yamato while on the Montana...less so.

 

^Think about it like that. 

 

In either case, the NC is the king in terms of playing peek-a-boo BB silliness in terms of concealment.

 

As for the rest of the Montana, like I said, biggest difference between it and the Yamato is the turret traverse, that said.

 

I won't bother to get it on the live server, nor will I likely get the Iowa (been there, done it already), my interest in the USN BB line stopped at the NC. 

 

Then again, that's also because I don't really care for the high-tier meta at this time (it isn't like I've been Playing my Yamato much either in all fairness) 

 

 

 

They could give it the same deck armor of the Iowa, the Iowa's first layer is thick enough to not get overmatched... 

 

 That isn't why the Montana gets citadeled easily, it's the Bow armor. And the same thing can happen to the Iowa to my knowledge.

 

[Air_0374]

 

 That isn't why the Montana gets citadeled easily, it's the Bow armor. And the same thing can happen to the Iowa to my knowledge.

 

Oh I know, but I doubt WG will change that so anything else to help it out a bit.

[Sakuzhi]

Oh I know, but I doubt WG will change that so anything else to help it out a bit.

 

To be fair, Armor is to be historical as it isn't deemed a balancing factor.

 

Too bad they couldn't buff the Atlanta's armor to the historical levels.

[IronWolfV]

 

To be fair, Armor is to be historical as it isn't deemed a balancing factor.

 

Too bad they couldn't buff the Atlanta's armor to the historical levels.

 

Wouldn't help too much though the turret armor up close to historical helped alot. Now DD HE spam can't knock out turrets anymore.

[10T0nHammer]

 

Wouldn't help too much though the turret armor up close to historical helped alot. Now DD HE spam can't knock out turrets anymore.

 

Incorrect, I still lose turrets to DD level HE, they didnt fix the problem, they just put a tiny bandage on a missing limb

[Sakuzhi]

 

Wouldn't help too much though the turret armor up close to historical helped alot. Now DD HE spam can't knock out turrets anymore.

 

The problem is all they did (i thought unless I missed it) was buff the HP pool instead of just stopping 6" and smaller HE rounds from damaging the turret front(s) in the first place.

[scruffycavetroll]

[IronWolfV]

 

Incorrect, I still lose turrets to DD level HE, they didnt fix the problem, they just put a tiny bandage on a missing limb

I have rarely lost a turret completely destroyed to a DD HE strike. Granted i get a few temporary knocked out here and there, but now I can count on one hand when a DD or hell 6 inch gunfire has completely knocked out a turret.

 

The problem is all they did (i thought unless I missed it) was buff the HP pool instead of just stopping 6" and smaller HE rounds from damaging the turret front(s) in the first place.

Still made a world of difference, though smart 6 inch gun captains are figuring out, just spam AP and pop go turrets.

[Sakuzhi]

 Still made a world of difference, though smart 6 inch gun captains are figuring out, just spam AP and pop go turrets.

 

Didn't say it didn't. Said that they didn't fix the armor profile like they should have in the first place.