ThatGuyOrby

Let me be clear here, I agree with three of these things at most. Sigma, TDS, and the turning radius. Iowa's rudder shift has never bothered me since I usually take the rudder mod since I usually run skills to hinder the effect of fires anyway and Iowa's concealment is excellent. It's not exactly special at her tier but 12.7km when built for it isn't bad, far from it. However Iowa's guns were noted as being some of the most consistent and accurate battleship guns ever put on a battleship due to advanced fire control systems now this wasn't saying much for a WWII battleship considering at long range the hit chance was roughly 3% for Iowa which was considered pretty damn good but it's strange that they're so much less accurate and consistent than other ships even at her tier at times (looking at you Musashi). Iowa had an improved version of the TDS found on the South Dakota class so I don't see why Massachusetts and Alabama have around double the torpedo reduction Iowa has save for the sake of being a gimmick for the SD class ships in game. I already stated my argument for the turning radius. The missing AA guns just blatantly don't matter in this meta it wouldn't change the fact that you're a great target for carriers. This will be my last post for a while because I have to go to work, I'll be back on when I get home.

1, they do if the damage control party does their job correctly and they often don't have the chance to as the flammable part of the deck is often separated from the interior of the ship. Interior fires are almost always caused by a shell penetrating and detonating inside the ship. 2. fair enough but that's how they are visually represented 3. Now you're just being ridiculous. Argue factually or don't respond. Destroyers having unlimited torpedoes is a legitimate balancing implementation in a game where every ship has unlimited ammo, giving a ship a 200m+ bigger turning radius than it actually had isn't.

A fire on deck is VERY unlikely to do anything significant to a ship unless they were making mistakes like at Jutland or what the Japanese did with their long lance torpedoes during the early years of the war. And comparing DDs having infinite torps to an incorrect turning radius is a non-comparison. Iowa didn't initially get it's real turning circle because WG thought it would be too strong. Now Iowa is surrounded by straight up better ships on all sides so changing the Iowa's turning circle to what it historically was 730 or 750m if I remember correctly would be an easy and sensible move. Iowa really has nothing going for it in the current meta. The second lowest tech tree HP pool, no longer the fastest T9 battleship (second fastest tech tree, when adding premiums it's not even close), AA is basically useless, it's penetration is just not impressive anymore, it's damage is pretty good but that only works if you can hit and penetrate and Iowa's dispersion can be incredibly unreliable at times even with the dispersion mod, and it's armor eats ridiculous amounts of HE damage trading off for alright at best AP protection that can be quite inconsistent. I love the ship, I love playing the ship but in the current meta it's definitely not a good ship. Won't stop me from playing it but I'm not going to act like it's great when it's not.

and a ship with 16 guns with a reload of 3ish seconds can't fire all game without running it's magazines dry within a couple minutes, a ship can't sink from a fire on deck unless there are so incredibly volatile things on deck, and guns noted by WG as being inferior to the USN MK7 have better penetration in game. Nothing about this game makes sense but what makes even less sense is holding onto these limitations that were put in place when Iowa was one of the few battleships in the game when there have been ships introduced that outshine it in many, many ways. Same could be said about Yamato's turning circle but that's another story all together.

The fact that we're getting OP fake ship after OP fake ship and the real ships get non-historic hindrances in the name of so-called "balance"

So we're just gonna ignore the fact that Iowa's real turning circle was sub 750m? kek

This is objectively false especially by WWII. British Armor Piercing shells were a joke being made of low quality, soft materials that were prone to deformation resulting in deflection on heavy armor. Even the 14"/45s of the Nevada and Pennsylvania classes (the ones on Arizona in game) had better penetration characteristics and numbers by 1941 even more so by 1943. Yeah the KGV class fired a heavier shell faster than the standards at a higher rate of fire but the standards fired a far superior shell made of rigid, high quality materials that had much better penetration characteristics at the cost of a smaller bursting charge. This is because two main reasons resources and the philosophy behind shell manufacturing. Put one way the British didn't really see the point in putting high grade materials to waste on something that'll be used a singular time, like-wise they didn't have the quality resources to spare on shells that might not get results. The US on the other hand saw a shell as one chance to deal the enemy a serious blow and they were going to give that chance the utmost likelihood of dealing devastating damage, the US also had the materials to spare to make these shells as high quality and rigid as they could. The proof is in the numbers and I'm not about to claim something and not back it up with numbers, here are penetration numbers at different ranges from reliable sources, mainly NavWeaps.com. UK 14"/45 - 26.9in at 0yd (668mm at 0m), 15.6in at 10000yds (396mm at 9,144m), 11.2in at 20000yds (285mm at 18288m) US 14"/45 - no data, 18in at 11,500yds (457mm at 10520m), 12in at 23400yds (305mm at 21400m) US 14"/50 - 28.03in (712mm) at 0yd, 20.12in at 10000yds (511mm at 9,144m), 13.75in at 20000yds (349mm at 18288m) You get the point. There are many more numbers I could list but there's no point in dragging this out. While the USN 14"/45 was untested at a lot of the ranges the other two guns were it still outperforms the UK 14"/45 at even (slightly) greater ranges and the competition with the USN 14"/50 just isn't even close. The USN 14"/50 is widely regarded as the best 14in artillery piece ever mounted on a ship even outperforming certain 15in guns in armor penetration tests. The only reason that KGV is placed over New Mexico and Arizona in game is due to deficiencies in historical armor piercing values in game, not taking shell quality into account, armor thickness and quality (not design), speed, and AA all save for the last three are problems fabricated by the game itself and the last of which was fixed on all USN battleships post 1941. This isn't to say which battleship is better but don't think to claim something is superior if you don't have the data to back it up. Because in almost all regards USN 14in guns VASTLY outperformed all others.

The California nerf is ridiculous, it's a T7 battleship with 14in guns, the second smallest at her tier, that can hardly be called especially accurate, consistent, or powerful which as per usual is completely off their historical mark. So at the risk of sounding crass or unprofessional...what the hell are you people smoking because you have to be out of your damn skulls if you think the ship was over-performing in any way shape or form.

Implement the Naval Training Center/Paragon system and me and many others are done with this game, I'm not going to lie, I've spent money on this game and it will be a shame but if this goes through I'm done and you'll lose most of your playerbase. I like this game as flawed as it can be but this? This cuts it, this is enough for even someone like me to say "I give up" I've defended this game so hard for so long just because it's a fun passtime but this is starting to look a lot like a P2W's dream come true and no your consumable changes will not help with such a wide gap, it's laughable that you think they ever could.