Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Montana'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Forum
    • English Speaking Forum
    • Deutschsprachige Community
    • Polska Społeczność
    • Česká a slovenská komunita
    • Communauté francophone
    • Comunità Italiana
    • Comunidad de habla española
    • Türkçe Topluluk
  • Mod Section
    • Rules, Announcements and General Discussion (English)
    • Modding Tutorials, Guides and Tools (English)
    • Interface Mods
    • Visual Mods
    • Sound Mods
    • Modpacks
    • Other Mods and Programs
    • Archive
  • Historical Section

Calendars

  • Community Calendar
  • This Day in History

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Twitter


Location


Interests

Found 18 results

  1. Why the USS Montana is perfectly fine as she is and does not need a buff ​I am bound to stir quite an argument with this, I am sure, but let me first present my arguments as to why I believe this. One thing is certain, the Montana is certainly not noob friendly, a welcome thing, in my eyes, in a game that is becoming increasingly noob friendly and bland. In continuation of this, the Montana caters to a different playstyle than her famed competitor - a playstyle which is far more dynamic than the dull bow-tanking playstyle of the top tiers. When taking apart the arguments most often thrown around on why she needs to be buffed, it becomes apparent that she is in no way inferior to Yamato. Neither does she seem to be to her german counterpart, though it should be said that I have no experience playing said ship. ​Like many battleship players, the first line I completed in the game was the Japanese battleship line, culminating in the Yamato. This was partly because the Yamato is undoubtedly one of the most famous battleships ever built, but also partly because more or less every forum post concerning the T10 battleships agree that the Yamato is a beast, albeit with weaknesses, as with all ships, and vastly superior to the dreadful Montana which is in dire need of a buff. (This was quite a while before the release of German battleships.) Thus I never bothered purchasing the Montana until recently, after having researched and played most ships in the game, and though I've had her researched for quite some time. The following arguments all assume that you're playing with a concealment build, which is in my opinion, playing to her strengths. Many of the points also tie in with each other. "I receive citadel hits too easily in my Montana" There is a reason for this. You are not playing her right. You should at no point show your broadside to the enemy when detected. Montana plays quite similar to the Amagi, a ship that I remember thoroughly enjoying. You have a menacing broadside, but it comes with a weakness. If you've reached Tier 10, there is no excuse whatsoever for not knowing this information already, as well as being more than competent at angling your ship. When angled, the Montana is surprisingly sturdy, taking minimal damage, even from a Yamato. Counter-arguments to this are of course that you're not able to fire your rear turrets when angling. Again, you've made it all the way to Tier 10, you should be familiar with wiggling your ship at this point. This is why the concealment build is so potent on the Montana: while undetected, you are able to show enough side to release your devastating broadside and being able to angle back before the enemy has a chance to return fire. Playing with the concealment build, get the rudder shift upgrade to aid in this - you don't need reduced repair on fire and flooding. If there are enemy battleships that have the opportunity to return fire instantly, let them fire off their salvos before you reveal your location with a deadly barrage of shells not even the Yamato can match. "The Yamatos guns are more accurate than mine" Yes, the Yamato has the most accurate battleship guns in the game, but the Yamato never really goes for a stealth build and often spends large portions of the game bow-tanking. Thus, the Yamato can only fire six shells at the time. That means that even with laser accuracy (which no battleships have), the Yamato is completely reliant on a substantial part of those six shells to hit. The stealth Montana on the other hand, doesn't have to depend on only six shells. Yes, she has worse dispersion, but the sheer volume of shells she puts out counters that. If you are bow-tanking in a Montana and only using your two forward turrets, or three turrets in case you're slightly angled, for the majority of the game, you're not playing her right. "Yamato is more manoeuvrable" Montana is actually quite comparable in terms of rudder shift and turning radius. This is assuming you're using the rudder shift mod as mentioned earlier. What mitigates the difference in favour of Montana is her detectability as well as speed. She has a much easier time disengaging and can trust her concealment to the point where she can turn undetected if not in the middle of the action (where you shouldn't strictly be as this leaves you vulnerable to flanking as well). The Yamato, for reasons unknown, is often more frequently targeted by enemy ships, including DDs, and suffers from worse concealment and might find turning and showing the side towards the enemy significantly more punishing. Not even the Yamato is immune from devastating blows to its sides. The Montana is 3 knots faster than the Yamato. This may not sound like much, and this might be slightly subjective on my part, but I find that I have a much greater ability to support my team in the Montana, owing to the superior speed, and I am less likely to be left behind by my cruisers (who often have an inclination towards advancing in the opposite direction the moment an enemy ship is detected on the horizon). This speed also lets you choose between more targets and as a Montana, nearly always on the move, you have a far greater selection of targets than the stationary bow-tanking Yamato, to which a torpedo attack or rain of fire is often inevitable. Fun-factor Finally, perhaps the most important point, the Montana is, in my opinion, infinitely more fun to play. She is a throwback to the fun of lower tier battleships while packing a significantly bigger punch. She offers an alternative to the boring and frustrating gameplay you often get with the Yamato, her vulnerable sides only offering more excitement, punishing the lousy players who shouldn't be sailing battleships in the first place. (It is also very satisfying to watch her shred enemy planes, though how she compares to the Yamato in terms of surviving aircraft carriers is debatable.) As you've probably noticed, none of the points above deal with one on one duels with Montana's counterparts. The thing to understand is that in many ways, the Montana plays similar to a Japanese cruiser or a stealth Missouri/Iowa. You are very vulnerable from the sides and you don't want to be caught brawling. Montana plays much more as a supporting ship and can play a much more significant role in aiding your team (by taking out cruisers and lower tier battleships more effectively than the Yamato). Your sea legs and concealment allow you to traverse the maps without too much difficulty helping your team secure capture points and strategic positions. However, and any tips are welcome to add to this, if you do find yourself in a one on one duel with the Yamato, your best bet is to close the distance and do a drive-by. This will negate the Yamato's superior armor and her turrets will be unable to keep up. As soon as you get close, lock your turrets to one side, pointing out from the middle of the ship, and as you pass the Yamato's citadel, let Montana's twelve guns tear her apart. This usually, if not always, results in a one-shot. I cannot give any advice against the Grosser Kürfurst as I have yet to end up in a pure one on one with one, but your best bet is probably to keep your distance and let your superior dispersion tip the battle in your favour. I have on numerous occasions completely wrecked enemy Grosser Kürfursts (including citadels at around 16 km range) by staying at range and angling between volleys, taking almost no damage in return. Again, any tips are welcome! Disclaimers: There are without doubt players out there far more capable than I am. I only play ranked to earn the commemorative flag every season. Playing intelligently and aiding my team are things I find more important than anything else. I have a 58% win rate in my Yamato and a 67% win rate in my Montana (along with a 2.5 destruction ratio and 1996 average XP). I have completed both the Japanese and U.S. battleship lines and I have the Bismarck from the German line without much interest in getting the Grosser Kürfurst for now. (I have also completed the US DD line, the IJN cruiser line and I am tier 8-9 in all other lines with the exception of the Russian and RN cruiser lines.) This post was not meant to say that the Montana is superior to the Yamato, but I would argue that she is not inferior either and can hold her own quite well when in the hands of a capable player (which I think everyone sailing a tier 10 should be). Also, a point often overlooked is that different ships suit different people and playing styles. If you are unable to make a ship work, you either stick at it or find another ship to play. It would be a shame if they buffed the Montana and that the fun of playing her somehow got lost in order to satisfy those who have no business sailing battleships at all.
  2. Hey folks, Figured I'd leave two of my videos here. They're basically my 2 best games so far, and I hope you enjoy One is a 241k damage game in the Bismarck which is mostly brawling with enemy battleships towards the end during a cyclone which ends up with 7 kills and a kraken, 2 close quarters expert, a dreadnought, 2 dev strikes, high caliber and confederate, and over 200 secondary hits without manual fire control for the secondaries.. Second one is brand spanking new, uploaded last night and it's my highest damage game so far. 272k damage in the Montana, yet only getting one kill as I focus on wearing down enemies showing broadside and posing a major threat to my teammates, which results in 10 citadels (3 of them are on a Moskva relatively early on, and the rest are mostly at enemy BBs showing broadside at close range) Again, I hope you enjoy! Hellfire_dk (or iFartz on Youtube and.. everything else really. Old WG account, old name..)
  3. PhantomSailor

    Montana Changes for Public Test 0.6.6.0

    So logged on Public Test today and to see the changes to USS Montana. These are the changes I saw, didn't look too deep if there could be other changes. But citadel has been lowered and here are the other changes. Citadel Deck Changed from 150mm to 19mm ​Citadel Torpedo Bulkhead Changed from 45mm to 110mm​ PUBLIC TEST: LIVE:
  4. Hey fellow captains, I've been reading a lot of posts about the imbalance of classes, the extreme frustration people experience while playing BBs on lower Tiers and the seemingly horrible grind towards the final TX BB. Many of you young cadets might ask, is it worth the effort? Why should I even consider playing these huge whales that constantly get torped, set on fire, dropped upon by carriers just to get f***ed over by RNGesus once your turrets finally turned towards the right target? But hey, on the bright side ... it'll stay this way, but you'll learn to deal with it. You simply have to. Once you've passed the grueling stage of Tier III and IV battleships with low range, horrible spread of your guns and lack of AA, the fun sets in. Not just because the ships improve but because you're starting to get the grip of your ship, the experience you need to feel the ominous presence of a DD nearby you haven't seen on the minimap for the past minutes, the numerous glances at the sky and map in fear and the growing knowledge about this mysterious citadel so many people have been talking about. Tier VI is your best place to be, you're an aspiring captain, dealing huge numbers left and right, just to see your high expections for Tier VII utterly crashed by the ships awaiting to be unlocked. This is where the doubt starts nagging at you, the famous ghost DDs striking at you from the shadows, dozens of planes constantly endangering your ship and the enemies suddenly got the news that there are these A and D keys on their keyboard? The stock version horrible, the upgraded hull far from being "okay" for you. Stop here, start playing these fun little cruisers that annoy the hell out of you? No, stay strong. Tier VIII, finally. You got there and you can see light at the end of the tunnel. You're the flagship and you finally got the speed to keep up with the fleet, you've realized that these annoying little cruisers and destroyers are your friends, spotting enemies for you, keeping enemy planes at bay. You can feel the enemy shells nagging at your armor, but you know how to angle your ship by now. The sky is lit up by the numerous HE shells declaring their immediate arrival, but you know you can take it or well, at least you know you have to endure it - but your revenge is on hand, soonTM. You think about a certain Batman quote about being a hero, but you shut up because you're too busy dodging while not losing your target or providing a nice look at your private parts...erhm broadside. TX - that's it. It cost you a fortune, it'll cost you a fortune each game but you're here and you've earned it. You should know how to play by now, enemies who're too greedy will get swept away by the force of your artillery, sent back to the ports where they came from. ------- I wanted to state my love for the BBs, especially the North Carolina, Iowa and the lovely Montana. Perfect brawlers, fear of any cruiser, able to take a punch or more - only rivaled by the mighty Yamato. The amount of damage you can deal is breathtaking, you're able to make any ship turn around or think twice about engaging. I've seen many captains carefully maneuvering their BBs at max range, hoping for a lucky RNGesus shot but I prefer the medium engagement range, making ships rock. You got the HP, the repair kit and the HP regeneration ability - other ships might fear to get primaried, you should be glad about soaking up damage - while your team is wiping the floor with the enemy. Any ship trying to hurt you won't hurt your fellow narrowchested cruiser-buddies, while you're taking low damage due to your positioning. Sometimes you need to charge, sometimes you need to fall back a bit - but you're a crucial part of your team. Is it worth the grind? F*** yeah. Battleships rock, nothing deals that much damage with guns or sends a CA to the bottom of the sea with one salvo... aaand there are only a few things funnier than dodging 15 torps with a 270m+ hull or taking down 50+ planes (and still die to CVs - personal record 76 planes, still died to the CV). It's not the almighty ship many want it to be, it won't be the unsinkable ship you might expect it to be - BBs often die but it's okay. You're the one who can turn the tide, you're the one who can defend the base while your teams is capping - or you can be the one pushing, forcing the enemy to retreat and deal with you. But do it as a team, especially at the beginning of the match. You need your team just as much as your team needs you, spotting, air support or simply the ability to kill off a 2k health cruiser on your heels while you'd rather kill off that BB next to you, showing off his full broadside. A final note - play other classes, especially DDs. Learn to play doesn't mean focus on your class, but it means that you should get a grip of how each class performs, works and what it takes to deploy a devastating strike. crap happens, when a DD managed to get you with your pants down... have respect for that, it's as hard for them as it is for you to. P.S.: I'd like to recommend iChase's videos to anybody interested in playing BBs, without his help I would've never enjoyed the game the way I do now.
  5. C_Menz

    Armor Guide: Montana

    The tier 10 United States Navy battleship Montana’s armor much like the tier 10 Japanese battle Yamato has excellent armor protection. Both ships are comparable as far as armor values go but the Montana falls short primarily to the Yamato being able to overmatch its bow/stern armor(due to the Yamato’s larger caliber guns) and thus is able to penetrate the Montana easily. Looking past that advantage the Montana’s armor is solid where it needs to be to protect its citadel areas. It is not without its downsides however with two main turret barbettes being a weak spot and the citadel in general being very large. This World of Warships Montana armor guide will break down the Montana’s armor over three different views and provide effective armor values. http://menzgaming.com/worldofwarships/armor-guide-montana/ Going into making this armor guide for the Montana I knew its armor has issues against the Yamato as far as overmatching goes. What I didn't expect was the #2 and #3 main turret weak spots under the barbettes that carriers over from the Iowa. I was also surprised to see that the Montana's deck armor is worse than the Iowa and also vastly inferior to the Yamato's by a significant margin. What are everyone's thoughts on the Montana's armor scheme?
  6. www.twitch.tv/starkim1999'' guys i just wanan say i wanted to start streaming world of warships and i would love you if u joined me
  7. RamirezKurita

    Late war AA artillery DPS values

    Everyone knows the endless threads about how the Essexes and Midways are far more powerful than the lowly Taihous and Hakuryuus, there's so many of them that even players who are nowhere near T9 and T10 have no doubt read them and probably commented on them (myself included in that), so I did a bit of looking into reasons for this to be the case (beyond the whole differences in aircraft). Something that I came across is how the Japanese 10cm twin mounts are actually terrible AA guns with only 2.25 DPS per barrel against aircraft, which strikes me as odd because historically they were among the best AA artillery of the time because of a high muzzle velocity and good rate of fire. In game, they are notably worse than the US 5"/38 and the IJN 12.7 cm guns, both of which have 3 DPS per barrel with the same range. It means that the Taihou has less long-range AA DPS than the Shoukaku. This also affects the Zao to a lesser degree, but the carriers have far more 10cm guns so they suffer far more from having these weapons. The Midway's and Montana's 5"/54s are also no better than the 5"/38s, which strikes me as being a little odd. If the 10cm twin mounts were to be notably buffed in AA DPS it would help close the gap between IJN and USN carriers, as the IJN carriers carry far more artillery than the USN ones, with the Midway only carrying 18 guns compared to the 24 of the Hakuryuu. Increasing the DPS of both the IJN and USN guns would also bring them more in line with the late/post war AA artillery on the Kutuzov, which manages 7.5 DPS per barrel, if the Hakuryuu's 10cm guns managed the same DPS it would have 180 DPS within a 5km range, enough to seriously threaten even the Midway's aircraft when combined with escorts, while the Taihou would have 120 DPS, again giving it a notable advantage against the Essex, while the Midway would have 135 long range DPS (notably lower than the IJN's 180) and the Montana 150 (giving the Montana a significant AA advantage over the Yamato). It would also make the Akizuki-class destroyers actually useful if they ever plan to add them into the game, as they were dedicated AA destroyers but only having 18 long range DPS with current values would be a waste of space, but with the buffed damage they would have 60 DPS, making them actually useful AA platforms if they also have defensive fire. Alternatively, rather than giving them all the same DPS, the later guns could have different combinations of range and DPS, with the longer range ones having lower DPS and vice-versa, as long as they are overall balanced against each other. TLDR - Buffing the other late/post war AA artillery to bring them in line with the Kutuzov's AA artillery would help top tier balance by generally weakening carriers at T9/T10, buffing the IJN carriers compared to their USN counterparts at those tiers and buffing the Montana compared to the Yamato, with the minor side effect of slightly buffing the Zao's AA suite, effectively fixing the problems that are most complained about in T10 games.
  8. Paladin0503

    Battleship Spotlight: USS Montana

    Do watch the video in 720p60 to get the full effect.Enjoy it​! The Montana-class battleships of the United States Navy were planned as successors to the Iowa class, being slower but larger, better armored, and having superior firepower. Five were approved for construction during World War II, but changes in wartime building priorities resulted in their cancellation in favor of the Essex-class aircraft carriers and Iowa class before any Montana-class keels were laid. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana-class_battleship
  9. MA89

    Yamato or Montana?

    Anyone know which of the two is better overall?
  10. El2aZeR

    About the Iowa/Montana

    Browsing the American Forums, I've stumbled upon this thread: http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/99212-confirmed-iowamontana-citadel-modeling-error/ For those of you too lazy to click that, it basically shows that the citadel model on both the Iowa and the Montana include a splinter deck which (obviously) should not be a part of it. This makes the citadel on both ships extend far above the waterline and is one of the reasons why they're so vulnerable compared to their contemporaries. Separating the splinter deck from the citadel would make them similar to the North Carolina and therefore much harder to hit at closer ranges. The official answer was: First of all, according to people in the thread (and I have no reason to believe they are lying) both Iowa and Montana are the only battleships in the game whose citadels are modeled to include the splinter deck (apparently the Yamato as well, but that is arguable). And I believe it is widely accepted that the Montana at least is the worst performing T10 battleship, being outclassed by both the Yamato and the G.Kurfürst in almost every category. Publicly available data supports this, showing that the Montana comes in dead last by a good amo in every relevant category across almost every server (a common trend for USN ships). The Russian server stands out as an anomaly, on which it on average sports slightly better damage and survival rates than the Yamato during the last two weeks. (I'm basing this off of warships.today, as wows-numbers is currently down, but I believe other stat sites will draw a similar picture) Of course, there are also things that will never be reflected in stats. Assuming a similar skill level, I think everyone will agree with me that a Yamato or a G.Kurfürst will usually win a fight against a Monty barring any divine intervention from RNGesus. The Montana simply doesn't have enough strengths to make up for it, most of her former ones taken away by the G.Kurfürst when it was introduced. Even some of the things it has going for it can be argued upon (for example Yamato is arguably better at weathering air strikes thanks to its absurd TDS value, as neither will be capable of wiping out a significant portion of T10 planes before they drop their payloads). This raises several questions: If being the most underperforming ship in its bracket is not enough to warrant a buff, what is? Sure, Monty deletes cruisers real good, but so do both the Yamato and the G.Kurfürst in addition to not being comparatively useless at everything else. And Monty is the most vulnerable to cruiser AP shells out of the 3. Does this perhaps mean that the game is only balanced based on statistics available on the Russian server? I've read otherwise, but WG employees are apparently no stranger to lying to the community as evidenced above. Is WG happy with the current state of US ships? If so, doesn't this validate everyone crying about "anti-US bias"? Including other facts like STS plating not being considered as armor (for those that don't know, that's 114mm of armor missing on the turret faceplate for the Montana alone), it'd be rather difficult to argue against that. It may just be that WG is waiting on how much the recent armor buff will affect the statistics before making further changes. Separating the splinter deck from the citadel would of course be a rather big survivability buff to the Iowa and the Montana, but the reasons given do seem rather questionable to say the least. Thoughts? PS: Well, this sure turned into a wall of text. It's my first post here, too *sigh*.
  11. Jean_Bart79

    Yamato, Stealth Zao seriously?

    We could probably say OP for following ships.. 1. stealth Zao 2. Yamato is there, seriously is there any ship that can be treated as OP ship from USN? No I don't think so? What I want to talk here is that we do not want any OP ship for US, German and Soviet Navy ship tech tree, but we need the balance. so, let's discuss about those ridiculous OP ships. 1. stealth Zao - as we hardly see CV that can spot enemy ships around the field once Zao is invisible, nothing can stand against it. -Its armor is thick as BB(so funny hey? lol), it even protects itself from 16inch shells with just a little bit of angle.. -Hindenburg and Des Moines, according to the stats Zao definitely has the highest AVG dmg and win rate(At least one has to be at the top but you will know what I am saying here as you see how big the gap is between Zao and other T10 cruisers.) -It has lowest HP, but who the Fuxk cares seriously? It can even grind every battleships and cruisers alone with unbelievably high fire chance, range and shell travel speed... -Can, anyone say cons about Zao reasonably? Everyone who says Zao is not OP usually gives us funny [edited] 2. Yamato -What is the cons about Yamato? Slow turret turning speed? well I think that is it? -AS there are only two T10 battleship lets compare with Montana -compare what? If those two ships fight 1 vs 1 Montana will lose above 90% of chance <- and stupid MM makes this sad reality even worse lol -Some people say that Montana is stronger against other classes like DD and Cruisers <- this might be the worst [edited]ever. let me explain why Because Yamato has uncomparably strong Bulge armor that reduces torp damage and way better secondaries<- strong against DD's and CV torp bombers Yamato's 18inch guns can penetrate literally anything even though the target is properly angled <- OP against all battleships it has low concealment but has overpowered accuracy and range when Montana only has 23.6KM of range with ugly dispersion. At max range and any range above 15KM, Montana's 16inch shells cannot give satisfactful damage to Yamato but Yamato can give enormously high damage to Montana at its max range. -Someone said, we have to play Montana like cruisers -> how can I play this ship like cruisers? Yamato can turn faster lol -Montana should use HE for fighting with Yamato? Even though it sets fire on Yamato a lot, still Yamato is superior to Montana... -Montana's armor is underpowered, WG even nerfed it by ignoring historical fact -> please check the details of armor structure of real Montana and in-game Montana. -Yamato was born to be the beast and I know that.. however WG loves not giving a crapabout historical fact. My opinion is not only mine, I am very confident to say most of players could agree with me. for fair and fun game there has to be an adjustment with these ships. I always respect all other opinion, however if it's not reasonable or way far from the real fact I may think it as [edited]and I have seen a lot in the forum. Please do not waste reader's time.
  12. vaskemaskina

    FFM.

    Fix F(insert random F word) Montana. Turning radius o fa cow. Gets citadelled by a pencil hitting the broadside. Did the USA really plan on winning at seas with this? I highly doubt it. Imagine if the japs would have had snowballs. Reacts to commands like my ex, maybe after the 3-4th call it will react(ie turn, or speed up). AA isnt anything impressive compared to Iowa or NC - Yes ive heard BUT ITS GOOD AGAINST LOWER TIER, yes im comparing to tierX, whats the point of comparing to t8? YES 12 guns but shells bounce off non stop or just do nothing at all. Now i have 300k XP with this and i can say i have had some real high results with it 160k+ dmg with 3-4-5-6-7 kills but that would mean a lucky game or completely muppet opponents. This ship can say it clearly is forgotten or just left like this on purpose. Worst of tier 10 BB's. A broadside exchange with a kurfurst would end up with montana being hit for 60k+ while kurfust at max 22k. Taking bow damage like hell as well (unlike the other two). I've heard comebacks like OH but its good against cruisers. Yes even cruisers are good against cruisers and basically any other BB is. Big deal. At least reduce the chance of being set on fire? Considering its FULLY steel? maybe? Torp protection can be thrown into the wastebin as well as i have both the target acq system mod and vigilance, which sounds nice, however at tier9 every submarine(ie destroyer) will launch more than 10+ torps at you, and given your 950m turning radius you will have a very good chance of doding a few but you'll surely be stuck. Just do SOMETHING with it as for the time being it's a lackluster and a waste of slot. You would need at least, in every game around 100k+ damage to gain any profit, given the current gameplay circumstances, it is rather annoying to achieve (No, challenging is not a word i'd use).
  13. Hello there With this post I try to say what needs to be changed in my opinion. As of now (5.15.1) there are some illogical things (Normal for WG) and unbalanced ships (especially at higher Tiers). I will start with the current Tier 10 Battleship Balance since that is one of the biggest problems right now. I will only talk about the Tier 10's since that is what matters me the most. Battleships Yamato is the absolute god of them all, Kurfürst is a playable but mostly inferior ship and Montana can't even be called a proper T10 BB. I'd buff the Montana in the following ways: -Increase maximum speed to 33kts -Increase secondary gun range to 7km (same for Iowa, keep 6km on North Carolina because reason) -Reinforce citadel front armor -Lower the citadel by a bit -Increase accuracy a bit more (just a tiny bit) Changes I'd make to the Yamato: -Decrease accuracy by a bit -Add the AA guns it had in 1945 (on the second turret for example) Kurfürst: -Increase accuracy -Decrease reload of 406mm guns to 28 seconds -Increase reload of 420mm guns to 35 seconds Some of these ideas are most likely controversial, but I think it would make the Montana a much more viable option when it comes to playing a BB. As of now the Yamato is superior to both the other BBs in so many ways. Cruisers Hindenburg -Increase secondary range to 5km (standard for cruisers, except Moskva) Des Moines -Decrease reload time to 7,5 seconds -Shorten citadel -Increase deck armor to 30mm -Decrease detection range by sea to 13,1 Zao -Decrease fire chance from 19% to 15% -Increase detection range by sea to 12,9km -Increase detection range by air to 9,7km Moskva -Increase reload time of main armament to 12 seconds -Increase secondary gun range to 7km Minotaur -Decrease AA damage -Allow for Radar+Smoke combination Destroyers I don't know much about them so I will keep my mouth shut. Aircraft carriers (Economy) This deserves an own forum, too many changes needed in order for good balance. The fixed repair costs should be removed from CVs since they don't take any damage in most games. At least lower it. Commander Skills -Remove/Rework Air supremacy -Fire prevention reduces the actual fire chance by actual 3% -Decrease the XP needed for the 19th skill point to a human level (like 450K) -Expert Loader allows to load different shells in different guns instead of faster loading when guns are loaded -Incoming fire alert triggers at 4 second shell travel time instead of 6 -Jack of all trades reduction increased to 25% -Preventive Maintenance reduces the chance of incapacitation by 70% instead of 50% That's about it. I will (probably) edit this post later on and add new ideas and changes I'd make. These are my personal thoughts, neither I know how WG agrees on them (probably not in a single way, because WG logic) and some changes are most likely controversial. Feel free to share your personal opinion below. Have a nice day.
  14. This series of guides goes to very detail about ship behavior tactics and stats. Videos include port view + captain skills + modules + stats comparisons + gameplay action Tier 3: Tier 4: NIKOLAI Tier 5: NEW YORK KONGO Tier 6: NEW MEXICO FUSO WARSPITE Tier 7: COLORADO NAGATO Tier 8: NORTH CAROLINA TIRPITZ AMAGI Tier 9: IOWA IZUMO Tier 10: MONTANA YAMATO
  15. Hello everyone, I am almost at half way of to both Tier9 BB. Amagi has 102K xp and NC has 34K xp. I have watched Youtube videos for both ships. Actually i am confused right now. On paper Montana has better armor thickness for citadel protection. But it seems to be its on "paper" etc. As like in the title which one i should go to first? It would be most appreciated if you explain your reasons. Sorry if i have grammer errors cause English is not my native language.
  16. Hey! I have for some time now thought about doing some World of Warships videos and after this game in my Montana I figured its about damn time. So please do enjoy a 373k dmg game in a Montana and my first attempt of a WoWS video! More videos will come in the future. There are some who say that there are too many german BBs. - I have to agree
  17. After enjoying the Iowa immensely, I have happily unlocked the Montana, and find myself absolutely furious. It's utterly useless. I have searched through the forums and there seems to be a lot of debate between the Yam, and the Montana (easy answer as far as I am concerned the Yam, all day every day) but no real discussion on the Montana, it's uses and quick frankly an appeal to have it amended. 1st and most critical complaint, how is it the same guns from the Iowa are suddenly less accurate. .... What in gods name is the justification for it? I get with the extra 3 guns it could be quite the broadside, but to do that you have to turn sideways exposing your length. there are trade off's to get that broadside but suddenly the same guns are less accurate. long range fire, no scratch that, ANY fire is completely RNGjesus and like a shotgun, one minute you wipe someone out, next you miss every shot at 8 k. To give an example I fired just a minute ago full broadside at a Yamato, less than 6 k at a 30 degree angle thats 12 shells, only 6 hits, (aiming right under his turrets) and 0 pens..... I did more damage to the yam with my secondary batteries than with my primaries. 2nd the citadel size/ and or Armour, - ok no machine can be god, and I accept there must be down sides, but when a Tirpitz can take 50% of my life at a 20 to broadside angle, and cruisers can consistently pen me, this leaves me completely stuck I just become an HP pinata. I can accept point two if point 1 were fixed. For those who are wondering, the Montana is a tier 10 Colorado, NOT worth the grind utterly turgid and a complete waste of a port slot, and 20 million. I know this is a wine but I cannot and do not find this fun. I've lost nearly 700k playing tonight and consider myself an ok shot. So fine I am no pro nor claim to be, but does anyone have any advice or recommendations, because quite frankly this ship is putting me off the game.
  18. Sample post We plan to have a master post at the beginning of every topic that will contain all essential information gathered in the thread and will be gradually upgraded with more info during the course of it's life. Montana class general overview: Last and final battleship class designed for the United States Navy with design process starting in paralel to the BB-61 Iowa class after the escalator clauses of the 2nd London Treaty were triggered in 1938-39. Originally the concept started it's life as an enlarged BB-57 South Dakota type ship and was considered as the continuation of the traditional, heavily armed and armored but slow USN style battleship line with BB-61 being an offspring fast type. As the design progressed during 1940 more and more protection was requested as the full potential of the Mark 7 16" gun was being realized with the new, 2700# super-heavy shell - all this in addition to a heavier main and secondary armament. Several variations were tried with many combinations of main and secondary armaments, protection and speed ranging from lowly 14" gunned variants to the huge 300+ meters long BB-65-8 that had best of all worlds. Early variants were interesting in that the designers looked at quadruple 16" turrets with twin 6" DP guns as secondary batteries. The quad turret proved to be too heavy and the 6" DP secondaries were simply not ready in time for the design - also the number that could be carried was only 12 guns, 6 per broadside (which is even with auto loading guns would provide somewhat low volume of fire.) Later when the fresh war meant relaxation of all artificial (that is political) limits a full spectrum study was prepared: now with the main armament settled at 12-16"/50 guns in four triple turrets even the smallest ships come in at 51.000 tons and at the other end of the spectrum sat two monsters of 67.000 tons standard/80.000 tons fully loaded dislacement with a length of 1050/1100 feet. These numbers are even more impressive if we take into consideration that these ships would have been built with a fully welded construction, meaning approx. 5% weight saving compared to riveted construction more commonly used by other navies. The final series of designs returned to the 60-61.000 tons standard mark but even that was almost twice the size of only the previous generation ships (BB-55/57 classes) - and most of the extra weight was invested into extra protection while the main armament grew only a mere 30% in the number of barrels keeping the same caliber! This factor alone demonstrated very well that gun technology was advancing faster then passive protection and if battleships are to be kept for the future a new standard of protection has to be reached - and quite probably the Montana class would have established the new standard battleship type of the USN, just like the Nevada class did at the outbrake of WWI. Also interesting to note that this was the first USN design that had a wider beam than the Panama Canal's existing locks - but a new set of locks was in planning just paralel with the design of this class. Preliminary Designs: First series of designs were done in 1939, all were made to adhere to the 45.000 tons standard displacement limit, set by the 2nd London Treaty's escalator clause. Another clause also permitted gun caliber to be raised to 16" back from the previous 14". July 1939 (Please note that hull no. BB-65 was hoped to be the first ship built to this design at that date) Name Main Guns Secondaries Displ.(rounded to hundred t) Belt Deck IZ (kyard) IZ vs BB65A 12-16"/50 20-5"/38 45.400 12.1" 4.75" 18-30 16"/45 normal shell all over BB65B 12-16"/50 12-6"/47 45.600 12.1" 4.75" 18-30 16"/45 normal shell all over BB65C 12-16"/50 (quad turrets) 12-6"/47 43.800 12.1" 4.75" 21-27 16"/56 belt; 16"/45 deck -ns* BB65C-1 11-16"/50 (quad-triple-quad) 20-5"/38 43.500 12.1" 4.75" 21-27 16"/56 belt; 16"/45 deck -ns BB65C-2 12-16"/50 (quad turrets) 20-5"/38 46.100 12.1" 4.75" 21-27 16"/56 belt; 16"/45 deck -ns BB65C-3 11-16"/50 (quad-triple-quad) 20-5"/38 45.100 12.1" 4.75" 21-27 16"/56 belt; 16"/45 deck -ns BB65C-4 11-16"/50 (quad-triple-quad) 20-5"/38 45.200 14.9" 4.8" 22-26 16"/56 belt; 16"/45 deck -hs* BB65C-5 10-16"/50 (triple-triple-quad) 20-5"/38 44.700 14.3" 5.5" 20-30 16"/50 heavy shell BB65C-6 10-16"/50 (triple-triple-quad) 20-5"/38 44.800 14.3" 5.5" 20-30 16"/50 heavy shell BB65D 12-16"/50 (quad turrets) 12-6"/47 44.000 12.1" 4.75" 18-30 16/45" normal shell BB65E 12-16"/50 (quad turrets) 12-6"/47 44.800 13.2" 4.75" 18-26.5 16/45" heavy shell BB65F 9-16"/50 20-5"/38 41.600 12.1" 4.75" 18-30 16"/45 normal shell all over BB65G 9-16"/50 20-5"/38 44.600 15.4" 6.2" 18-30 16"/50 heavy shell BB65H 9-16"/50 20-5"/38 43.400 15.4" 6.2" 18-30 16/45" heavy shell BB65I 9-16"/50 20-5"/38 44.400 15.4" 5.5" 18-30 16"/50 heavy shell BB65J 12-14"/50 20-5"/38 44.300 14.3" 5.5" 20-30 16"/50 heavy shell *ns= normal shell 2240 pounds; hs= heavy shell 2700 pounds; all designs were capable of 27.5 knots speed. Reportedly the 16"/50 quadruple turret was not well liked, though it offered nice savings in weight and optimization in other characteristics. The cited reasons were too high rotating weight (400t more vs the triple turret) and an extremely large cut in the strength deck - therefore requiring extra strengthening in structure and foundations, plus increased electrical capacity to supply the bigger motors needed for turning and elevation of the guns. Very interesting is that the IZ was calculated in many cases against the 16"/56 Mark A gun, a prototype that was a linered down 18"/48 gun and was by far the best belt penetrator among any BB guns ever built and test fired. On the other hand the 16"/45 Mark 6 was taken as standard for deck protection as it's ballistic charactersitics were better suited for deck penetration then the later Mark 7 50-cal length weapon - the letter one being a middle ground. Design A was essentially a BB-57 with one turret added and guns changed from Mark 6 to 7, while design B tried 6"/47 DP guns (which pushed the displ. well over 45.000 tons). The low number of secondary guns was not liked, but adding 4 extra guns would cost almost 500 tons+more in armored volume. The C series tried the quadruple turret concepts and weight saved was invested in extra protection versus better guns and/or the heavy shell. Generally using the better guns meant a good 8k yards shrinking of the IZ, leaving the versions protected on BB-61 scale (12.1" belt 19deg inclined belt + 4.75 main AD) with only 6.000 yards of IZ. If one adds the 2700 pound shells into the mix then these ships have no or even negative protection - BB65-C4 with increased belt restored this to a mere 4kyard wide IZ, not too much, especially with a speed of only 27 knots. Why this is important is that it shows very well that no matter how large a battleship design grows the principle of armoring them against their own shells means that even these colossal ships are very tightly constructed. Designs F-J were all in search of better protection by sacrificing some firepower, either one triple turret or caliber reduction to 14" -non of them too attractive for fans of firepower (and what's the point of a huge BB if not that? :)). Interestingly the designers of the time were thinking along the same lines and contemplated using the 18"/47 Mark A and the 16"/56 Mark 4 (physically the very same gun - pls follow the link for more info) guns as well but the idea was dropped for now as the gun proved too heavy (~190 tons per gun) to provide more than 6-7 guns on 45ktons while keeping a good enough protection. What's more the 16"/56 had a barrel life of only 120 shot which was barely above the usual allotment of 100 rounds per gun. Also as tests somewhat later proved the existing 16"/50 Mark 7 with the super-heavy shell was more than capable of penetrating anything afloat at that time (the USN had no firm idea in 1939-40 about the size and main armament of the Yamato class, though rumors circulated about the use of 18" weapons). Comparison pics of the 18"/47 Mark A and the 16"/50 Mark 7 and a VW Beatle (this exhibit is still in existance today - so the 18" weapon is the largest surviving naval artillery piece!) Jan-February 1940: With the Second World War progressing international treaties were abandoned and this opened up the political gates even for naval designers, which was exactly the case for the Montana class developers. Not only that but in February 1940 the Secretary of the Navy (thanks in no small part to the agitation of said developers) ordered a third set of locks built for the Panama-canal, with a lock-width of 140 feet, thus removing the age old limitation of 108 foot beams for US Navy ships. These two factors basically meant that sanity (ie operational practicalities, time and money) remained the only limiting factor for new battleship construction. So came the Construction and Repair division of the USN who was responsible for ship preliminary designs at that time and produced a spectrum study of no less than 12 new designs that still bore the BB-65 designation as Congress only ordered battleships up to BB-64, and those still to the BB-61 Iowa design. Since the previous range of designs showed that a main armament of 12-16"/50s in four triple turrets is the most desired layout all the new ships had this main feature. First they went back to a strechet South Dakota variant (BB65-1) that was capable of 27.5 knots with the same powerplant (130.000 SHP) as said ship and was protected between 20-30kyards against it's own guns (15.3" belt and 5.5" deck). This variant came out at a fairly good 51.300 tons, though it only had the same secondary battery. A newly developed 5" gun, the 5"/54 Mark 16 was suggested by BuOrd in place of the 6"/47 DP Mark 16 as a good compromise between gun performance and weight. So design BB-65-2 was the same as BB-65-1 but secondaries were replaced with the 5"/54 guns and the ship stretched by 20 feet to accomodate this. Faster variants were looked at as well that utilized the Iowa tpye powerplant (212.000 SHP) which could drive a 1000 foot long by 115 foot wide 58.000 ton hull at a speed of 31.8 knots (BB-65-6) - a hoped for 33 knots speed would require a calculated 318.000 SHP (and probably 6 shafts), this was BB-Y1. Alternatively a somewhat smaller, 61.000 ton hull could be driven at 34 knots+ by the same plant. Very important to note that these latter ships had a 14.2" belt internally mounted just like in BB-57 and BB-61 at a slope of 19 degrees (deck was 5.5"). At this time questions arose about the validiy of the internal belt (used earlier as a weight saving measure) as the hull was prone to flooding outside the belt and also battle dmaage repair was much more difficult for internal armor plates. March-July 1940: FInal preliminary design series, ordered by the General Board in February 1940. This series contained 13 designs, but a few were only slightly modified, refined from the previous series. New were BB65-1 and BB65-2 (the ones from the previous series were refined into BB65-3 and -4). The new BB65-1 was a slightly modified BB-61 with extra protection but less speed (31 knots) wheres BB65-2 was an enlarged BB-61 (980 feet length and 111 feet beam) keeping the 33 knots speed but gaining the heavier set of armor as well - both had 15.75 belts and a 5.5" deck. This meant a nice 18-30kyards IZ versus the heavy shell fired from the Mark 7 16"/50. The larger ship came out at 53.500 tons as a nice compromise. Wit hthis however a return was made to 12 gun designs and -3 and -4 were simply the Jan-Feb series -1 and -2 buffed to 28 knots speed (-2 also had it's SHP increased to 150.000). FInally came the very large design starting with -5 which had it's IZ extended to 32.000 yards, requiring 6.2" on the deck with an 57.500 tons , 930 feet long hull plus 150.000 SHP to maintain 28 knots. -6 was again a refinement of the January design and only gained in length and beam (making it 64.500 tons). Speed remained at 31 knots- Finally -7 and -8 were getting everything, high speed, heavy protection (18-30kyards for -7 and 18-32kyards for -8), 12 main guns - all this came at a staggering price as -7 weghed in at 65.000 tons with a 320.000 SHP propulsion plant and -8 was 67.000 tons on 366.000 SHP! Clearly these latter two would have required turbo electric drives and at least 6 shafts to transmit that kind of power to the water. At about this time in mid March the decision was also taken to employ external belts though keeping the sloping at 19 degrees, similar in concept that was used in the old BB-55 design at a lesser slope. At this point no consideration was given to buff torpedo protection, however returning to the external belt clearly meant loosing the advantages of the earlier tapered down belt's secondary function as main torpedo bulkhead - and it's primary value as protection versus diving shells. Two more designs were produced in June, -9 and -10, the former simply as a BB65-3 with extra belt protection but thinner decks (IZ moved to 18-30kyards) and -10 as a 9 gun variant which came in at only 48.000 tons. 1940 July marked the fall of France and this was a major event in USN planning as Congress was about to pass the "Two-Ocean Navy" act that would authorize the building of insane amount of ships - and the design for the crown jewel, a heavy battleship was badly needed. There was a good chance that Great Britain will fall as well then the United States had to fight Germany and Japan alone on both oceans. Huge number of ships also meant that existing designs will be mass-produced instead of delaying construction waiting for a better design (that is why for example the CL-55 Cleveland type, though a somewhat problematic design was built in huge numbers). Also now the very large fast designs fell out of favour as they were both expensive, took longer to build and surely unable to transit the existing Panama Canal locks (the 3rd set of locks was cancelled due to the war as well) and use existing docks and ports. Also 33 knots was deemed unnecessary for heavy BBs when most existing cruisers couldn't do much more than that. The intermediate 30-31 knots speed was preferred (it has to be noted here that while 1-2 knots of difference in speed does not seem to be a big deal, technically it meas that the powerplant can be reduced by 25-30%!) with designs -5 and -6 being favoured as good middle grounds. Also some members of the General Board questioned the value of a 4th triple turret, requiring 10% extra displacement - so Preliminary Designs prepared 8 more designs: - BB-65A (a -5 modified for more power but reduced length - two uncompleted 10 gun (3-2-2-3) variants; they were not competitive with the 12 guns schemes focus now shifted for 9 gun versions again to have the smallest possible, but fully protected battleship (BB65-11, -11A,-12,-13). BB65-13 was the most interesting as a fully protected BB-61 with opnly 28 knots speed. But the General Board made it's decision for the BB-65A which had the 212.000 SHP powerplant of the Iowa class and was fully protected agains the heavy shell from 18-32.000 yards. Clearly this one seemed to be the best compromise between speed, protection and firepower. Also this design featured first a secondary, lower, inner armour belt as a protection against diving shells - it was a continous strip of heavy armour placed on the innermost, main torpedo bulkhead. On the 19th July Congress passed the Two-Ocean Navy act, authorizing construction of 385.000 tons of battleships, ordering BB-65 and BB-66 as Iowa class ships (2* 45.000 tons) and BB-67-71 as the Montana class (5*59.000 tons) to a yet to be finalized design. Final designs (November 1940-January 1941): After the authorization a fresh series were begun, this time with the BB-67 nomenclature and only 4 new versions were born. They stemmed from BB65-5 and -5A and were all just refinenments. First BB-67-1 was a 890 feet version of -5 (vs. 930 feet) and it is specaulted that this was in order to comply with some dicking restrictions. BB-67-2 was an answer to the further refinment of the Mark 7 16" guns, as it's newer mods had the muzzle velocity inreased to 2500 feet/sec, meaning that the belt had to be thickened from 15.75" to 16.1" to maintain the IZ. At the same time the deck thickness could be relaxed somewhat to 5.8" from 6.2" thanks to the flatter trajectory due to the higher speeds. This change cost only 200 tons in displacement, but the after belt, protecting the steering gear box's connections was eliminated , so standard displacement could be kept at 59.700 tons. Also the underwater protection against diving shell was finalized around this time with a 7.74" inner belt added onto the 30 pounds (0.75") thick torpedo bulkhead, later this was redistributed to 8.4" tapering to 1.5" over magazines and 7.1" tapering to 1" over machinery spaces. BB-67-3 was a bit trimmed down version of -2, as some wight saving measures saved a few hundred tons as it turned out that the 212.000 SHP Iowa powerplant was more than what was needed for 28 knots (with it the ship was good for 29). So a completely new powerplant with an arrangement reminiscent of the Lexington class BCs and with 172.000 SHP was adopted instead. This also relaxed machinery space length so it can be kept at a level that was desired by deck space needs. Other changes were relatively minor, like the addition of a bomb deck aft. FInally BB-67-4 was the same only it added one more feet of armored freeboard (9 feet) and with this the finalized displacement came in at 60.500 tons standard. This was the design choosen for production and as such members of the fleet have been asked about it. Generally people were surprised how little the addition of an other 15.000 tons over the BB-61 design bought (and it was the same feeling for the Iowa's extra 10ktons over the South Dakotas). Especially critics were picking on the same number of secondary battery barrels where comparison to foreign designs showed a lot more barrels on much more limited displacement - Bismarck and Littorio are given as examples (in fairness all those ships had a split battery with both high angle AA guns and single purpose low angle guns so only the relevant weapons could fire at a given target whereas in case of the Montana all guns could fire on both ships and planes).
×