Anchor Report 04.05.15

[Foofight]

Patch 0.3.1 wargaming stream, enjoy 

 

http://www.twitch.tv/wargaming/v/4693920 

[Seinta]

I wonder how the IJN gonna hold up to the US BBs.

[69thBuLLeT]

Sadly streaming unwatchably slowly for me. I'll have to wait for a write-up.

[W4lt3r]

I wonder how the IJN gonna hold up to the US BBs.

 

At tiers 4-7 IJN has massive range advantage (and speed in most tiers) over USN BBs.

US players have to suffer quite a while being outranged in some cases by cruisers, to reach tier 8 North Carolina where they finally get range to fight against IJN battleships.

[Takeda92]

These new battleships will be the death of carriers.

 

[Seinta]

 

At tiers 4-7 IJN has massive range advantage (and speed in most tiers) over USN BBs.

US players have to suffer quite a while being outranged in some cases by cruisers, to reach tier 8 North Carolina where they finally get range to fight against IJN battleships.

 

And all snipers will cry in unison after the patch goes live.

Also just to point out, all of the ships had stock Gun Fire Control System.

[W4lt3r]

 

And all snipers will cry in unison after the patch goes live.

Also just to point out, all of the ships had stock Gun Fire Control System.

 

And?

The fire control gives 10% range boost, so we're talking at 1.3km - 1.5km extra range, which at best ups the range to 15.2 x 1.1.. 16.72km (I think?) on the Colorado.

How about the 13.6km stock range for the New Mexico? Upgrade the FCS and get around 15km range vs the Fuso that can launch it's salvos to... was it 21 km? and moves bit faster then the new mexico.

[Asamon_1]

My worries are of the AA capabilities of USN BBs. I thought that CL/CA role would be AA cover for BBs. But with the seen AA capabilities, they don't need any AA support from cruisers....

[Seinta]

 

And?

The fire control gives 10% range boost, so we're talking at 1.3km - 1.5km extra range, which at best ups the range to 15.2 x 1.1.. 16.72km (I think?) on the Colorado.

How about the 13.6km stock range for the New Mexico? Upgrade the FCS and get around 15km range vs the Fuso that can launch it's salvos to... was it 21 km? and moves bit faster then the new mexico.

 

You're right.

Hmmmm, so you have a ship with fast turret treverse, speed and maneuverability, lack of range.

I believe US BBs(atm)   are gonna fulfill the role of Battleship better than the IJN "snipers". 

Because your most well armored ship should be as far away from the battle as possible.

 

 My worries are of the AA capabilities of USN BBs. I thought that CL/CA role would be AA cover for BBs. But with the seen AA capabilities, they don't need any AA support from cruisers.... 

 

They did state that US BBs lack the torpedo protection that IJN BBs have.

[OVanBruce]

Oh God that poor pen on Nathan's hand... *click click click click*

[Takeda92]

They did state that US BBs lack the torpedo protection that IJN BBs have.

They did say that? I must have missed it.

Those 2 knew nothing about IJN BBs, they couldn't answer what advantage (if any!) they will have over the US BBs (we do know though)

[W4lt3r]

 

You're right.

Hmmmm, so you have a ship with fast turret treverse, speed and maneuverability, lack of range.

I believe US BBs(atm)   are gonna fulfill the role of Battleship better than the IJN "snipers". 

Because your most well armored ship should be as far away from the battle as possible.

US BB's might have ok maneuverability and faster turret traverse for BBs, but they're no way in hell speedy. IJN BB's at tiers 4-7 out speed them.

[Flavio1997]

yes..but guys...they have 87 and 92 of aa ratio at tier 8-9...it will be the dead of carrier and team play

 

yes..but guys...they have 87 and 92 of aa ratio at tier 8-9...it will be the dead of carrier and team play, because the bb can defend themselves without problems

 

[W4lt3r]

yes..but guys...they have 87 and 92 of aa ratio at tier 8-9...it will be the dead of carrier and team play, because the bb can defend themselves without problems

 

And how is that going to affect the tiers 4-7?

[OVanBruce]

Interesting stuff:

 

Senjo (Zao) gets 44.900 health. 5k health boost seems about right, one more citadel from other cruisers. Still BB fodder though.

Its RoF got worse!? Counted around 13-14 secs bettwen salvoes in that bot match

[Bl4ckh0g]

You kinda missed the 8k damage HE on the 356 mm and the 10k damage HE on the 406 mm guns

 

[opseas]

Interesting stuff:

 

Senjo (Zao) gets 44.900 health. 5k health boost seems about right, one more citadel from other cruisers. Still BB fodder though.

Its RoF got worse!? Counted around 13-14 secs bettwen salvoes in that bot match

 

Senjo isnt supposed to get a RoF buff with 3.1, just HP. The Baltimore is getting a RoF buff and i wonder for how much it changed now

[genai]

 

Senjo isnt supposed to get a RoF buff with 3.1, just HP. The Baltimore is getting a RoF buff and i wonder for how much it changed now

 

Why do people keep saying that... it still is there in development bulletin that Senjo is supposed to get RoF buff

 

"we’ve raised the primary armament firing rate of battleship Yamato, interchanged Mogami and Myoko, and added combat capability and firing rate to Senjo (which, by the way, will now be called Zao)".

 

But anyway, cruisers still crap other than Des Moines... and armor changes and stuff make BBs even stronger... its not enough that BBs ruin games already, they need to be even better! While cruisers still largely useless... IJN ones totally useless

 

World of Battleships indeed!

[OVanBruce]

 

Senjo isnt supposed to get a RoF buff with 3.1, just HP. The Baltimore is getting a RoF buff and i wonder for how much it changed now

 

It was getting a RoF buff too, otherwise it will keep being the worse tier X ship by a big difference.

 

Anyway, are you guys ready for Yamato being old and busted while Montana will wreck anything in the field without having to care about anything except torps?

 

World of Battleships, getting closer step by step.

[Crooq_Lionfang]

 

Senjo isnt supposed to get a RoF buff with 3.1, just HP. The Baltimore is getting a RoF buff and i wonder for how much it changed now

 

Are you sure? I, too, thought I heard it would get one. Time to reread all that WG said about the patch...

 

Edit: nvm, someone c/p'd the part already

[Unintentional_submarine]

The USN BBs won't have faster turret traverses than their enemies until the Colorado. Before that... 72 seconds, just like Warspite. It isn't going to be the most fun. But once you reach Colorado, oh man you will become a beast. 23km range, fast'ish, superb AA, superb turret traverse (45 seconds), excellent armour (save against torps it seems, but I guess they have to have some weakness) and it seems reasonably maneuverable. The dispersion isn't the best, but it isn't bad either.

 

But before Colorado... yikes. The only advantage I could see was the massive HE shells and the number of gun on the New Mexico. By the way, to those expecting Warpite-like maneuverability, take a look at the value... 19! That's lower than the Kawachi! She is 1 knot faster admittedly, but her other stats are not anything good either. So expect the same rudder as Warspite and a wider turning circle (which is pretty bad considering New Mexico is slower, meaning her degree per second turning is pretty bad).

[Tiger1940]

Man, they look beautiful! Even prettier then they were in navy field 1! I used to have the USS Montana in navy field, its an awesome ship, so far i think best Battleship ever. I'm raising my researchable free exp in wot and once it will get unified with wot wow, will be easier xD

[Unintentional_submarine]

I just noticed something.

 

So the argument for the range is the height of the rangefinders, right. So what makes the Colorado have such an impressive range in comparison? Certainly not the placement of it's rangefinders, as that is pretty much the same as the previous battleships. Obviously gameplay concessions were made somewhere in the tree, as I doubt it would have gone over well with Iowa and Montana sitting at 17-18km range.

[Boomer7]

Its not the placement of the rangefinder but the size that matters more in how far and how accurate at distance you can aim.

The farther apart the lenses of the rangefinders are the longer it takes until the two "beams" become nearly parallel and make it hard to find the point where they both meet.

Of course mounting it higher up, gives you also an advantage, but, at a certain height it gets negligible

 

(As a sidenote that is the reason why there are no telephoto lenses for rangefinder cameras as there rangefinder is too small to allow focusing so far out.)

 

The fire control computer might also have something to do with the increased range.

 

here is a nice article about the mechanical computers which were in use on the US Battleships till long after WWII. The guy who wrote it served on the USS Iowa.

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/03/17/gears-of-war-when-mechanical-analog-computers-ruled-the-waves/

 

  Even without digital computers, the Iowa could fire 2,700-pound “dumb” shells nearly 30 miles inland with deadly accuracy, within a circle of probable error of around 80 meters. Some of its shells had circles of destruction larger than that.

 

 

[Zenith]

I wonder how the IJN gonna hold up to the US BBs.

 

#americanned

 

But in all seriousness, I do think the Japanese BBs are still going to be a force to be reckoned with, at least in the lower tiers.