Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Wavecave

Why can Yamato guarantee damage of 5k-15k each salvo on stern/bow

37 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
516 posts
2,518 battles

when Montana and Iowa can't? where are these historical documents of Yamato having such superior guns?

 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Supertester
385 posts

The overmatch mechanics.

 

A shell ignores armor that is 1/14.3 of its calibre. This means Yamato's 460mm guns can ignore armor that is 32mm thick, while Montana's406mm guns can ignore armor that is 28mm thick.

 

And here's where the armor comes in. The bows of most high tier (and even some low tier) battleships are precisely 32mm thick. Yamato can completely ignore the bow armor, while Montana's shells ricochet off them at high angles (like when facing right towards you).

 

A simple fix for Yamato's bow-annihilating overmatch powers would be to increase the overmatch from 1/14.3 to even 1/14.7, as that would mean the Yamato guns could only ignore 31mm armor. But would that really be balanced for all the other ships? Changing the overmatch would effect the entire game, and also remove a lot of the Yamato's advantage. The Yamato's insanely big guns with their armor-ignoring abilities are a huge part of what makes the Yamato. 

 

So I'd rather they nerf something else of the Yamato, like for example the healing ability.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,286 posts
9,870 battles

So I'd rather they nerf something else of the Yamato, like for example the healing ability.

 

In a 1v1 against a Montana, the Yamato doesn't even need a healing ability. If they are facing each other, bow towards the bow, Yamato will wreck the Montana without taking almost any damage while he will citadel the Montana multiple times. Sadly, thats how most of Yamatos play these days, just sit in a spot and snipe with 2 frontal turrets because no one can harm them properly that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
516 posts
2,518 battles

why is this allowed? izumo hits my stern and did 17k dmg but i dealt 2k dmg after shooting several times

 

i'm one of those "weird" people who prefer colorado over nagato and new mexico over fuso and everyone told me how good iowa would be.. poor lie. even NC can hit harder

 

nerf yamato and izumo or buff iowa and montana, this is pissing me off

1EQJR0w.png

Edited by Wavecave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
516 posts
2,518 battles

i dealt 2k dmg on another Iowa exposing his broadside, those were 9 hits

 

meanwhile, enemy Iowa hits me for 20k dmg on the tip of my bow

 

dat "RNG" lol..

Edited by Wavecave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POMF]
Players
513 posts
12,805 battles

why is this allowed? izumo hits my stern and did 17k dmg but i dealt 2k dmg after shooting several times

 

i'm one of those "weird" people who prefer colorado over nagato and new mexico over fuso and everyone told me how good iowa would be.. poor lie. even NC can hit harder

 

nerf yamato and izumo or buff iowa and montana, this is pissing me

1EQJR0w.png

 

nerf izumo. Cant stop laughing about this. Iowa and montana ve a different playstyle from iuzmo/yamato....what u seem to want is just the same playstyle for every line. Whats the point if different lines when they would essentialy play the same?

 

 

Edited by Reyte
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
516 posts
2,518 battles

tell me more about this "different playstyle" montana and iowa is supposed to require

does it involve in being useless, not dealing damage and focused on ramming enemy ships?

 

edit: i looked up your stats and you want to tell me how to play US BBs when you're doing piss poor in them? the highest US BB you have is colorado but please, do tell me about this "unique playstyle" that montana and iowa is supposed to have

Edited by Wavecave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,286 posts
9,870 battles

 

nerf izumo. Cant stop laughing about this. Iowa and montana ve a different playstyle from iuzmo/yamato....what u seem to want is just the same playstyle for every line. Whats the point if different lines when they would essentialy play the same?

 

 

 

Agree with Iowa, but Montana? What playstyle is that, run away when you see a Yamato and let him wreck the rest of your team??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
516 posts
2,518 battles

i never upgraded anything on US BBs besides the B hull for Colorado, everything else was stock except for modules obviously

it's quite sad how I'm able to deal more damage with Colorado which I played against T8-T9 most of the time

Edited by Wavecave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,286 posts
9,870 battles

It's not that bad, Wavecave. If you are dealing so much more damage with higher tiers than with Colorado, than the problem is in you. But a bit of rebalance is needed between Yamato and Montana.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POMF]
Players
513 posts
12,805 battles

The way the armour layout is it favours close range duels. The armour of unangled yamato is much worse than the armour of montana in close range. The aa of montana is also better than yamatos so the sitting in front of other ships doesent work for the montana/iowa anyway. After all 46 cm guns are much better than 40.6 cm. So it should come to no suprise that they can citadel at most angels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
516 posts
2,518 battles

It's not that bad, Wavecave. If you are dealing so much more damage with higher tiers than with Colorado, than the problem is in you. But a bit of rebalance is needed between Yamato and Montana.

 

you misread what i said

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,102 posts
2,442 battles

Thing with Yamato is, that it is/was designed to dominate any other type of BB. While WG somehow managed to implement this aspect of the ship with quiet some success, it now leads to the mentioned playstyle, which is camping and sniping with the forward turrets.

The advantages of the USN BBs lie in different aspects, compared to the Yamato. While i consider a nerf or "adjustment" on the Yamato as the wrong way, i would like to see a change to the game mechanics, like improved accuracy/decreased RNG on stationary or slow moving targets.

The few occasions i met a Yamato with my Tirpitz in random games always were more or less the same: the Yamato went to a position where it´s broadsides were more or less protected from flanking fire or broadside-hits and stopped, facing it´s bow towards the enemy. The rest of the battle(s), the Yamato captains were busy with forward-turret sniping and adjusting their positions towards the enemy, moving forward or backwards with low speed only. It´s of course working as intended, but the weired penetration mechanics of this game, combined with the skill-ruining RNG factor do their best to break any skilled players morale and fun...

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,976 posts
2,773 battles

The overmatch mechanics.

 

A shell ignores armor that is 1/14.3 of its calibre. This means Yamato's 460mm guns can ignore armor that is 32mm thick, while Montana's406mm guns can ignore armor that is 28mm thick.

 

And here's where the armor comes in. The bows of most high tier (and even some low tier) battleships are precisely 32mm thick. Yamato can completely ignore the bow armor, while Montana's shells ricochet off them at high angles (like when facing right towards you).

 

A simple fix for Yamato's bow-annihilating overmatch powers would be to increase the overmatch from 1/14.3 to even 1/14.7, as that would mean the Yamato guns could only ignore 31mm armor. 

 

Why not just increase the armor of US BBs at stern/bow to 33mm instead?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FAM]
Alpha Tester
2,435 posts
7,140 battles

Stop talking about buffs or debuffs for battleships and start arguing about bringing CVs back to higher tiers. Most of Yamato's shenanigans, specially the camping Yamato, wouldn't happen if a tier X CV just exists in the field.

 

CVs will put some limit to the torp spam too.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PRM]
Players
48 posts
6,656 battles

Yami is the beast, i have Iowa and this is crap ship. one salvo frome Yami make on me 50k damage, same and Izumo. in hole line of US BB ididnt saw more fragile ships then IOWA and MONTANA.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NED]
Players
4,200 posts
11,706 battles

Ever thought of teamplay? Draw the Yamato's attention with your Iowa/ Montana so the DD's/ planes can sneak up on the Y from the side and place the ship once again in her historical perspective (one floor down). I've been in some battles with/ against Yamato's: they really have a torpedo magnet and catching device on them....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[I401]
Beta Tester
1,008 posts
8,072 battles

Montana is better against every other ship that is not yamato so stop crying for Yamato nerfs.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,583 posts
7,346 battles

View PostOrkel2, on 11 December 2015 - 12:50 AM, said:

The overmatch mechanics.

 

A shell ignores armor that is 1/14.3 of its calibre. This means Yamato's 460mm guns can ignore armor that is 32mm thick, while Montana's406mm guns can ignore armor that is 28mm thick.

 

And here's where the armor comes in. The bows of most high tier (and even some low tier) battleships are precisely 32mm thick. Yamato can completely ignore the bow armor, while Montana's shells ricochet off them at high angles (like when facing right towards you).

 

A simple fix for Yamato's bow-annihilating overmatch powers would be to increase the overmatch from 1/14.3 to even 1/14.7, as that would mean the Yamato guns could only ignore 31mm armor. 

 

Why not just increase the armor of US BBs at stern/bow to 33mm instead?

 

 

That would be unhistorical :trollface: And buffs beyond historical specs can be applied only to glorious soviet tonks sheeps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Supertester
3,402 posts
18,088 battles

Stop talking about buffs or debuffs for battleships and start arguing about bringing CVs back to higher tiers. Most of Yamato's shenanigans, specially the camping Yamato, wouldn't happen if a tier X CV just exists in the field.

 

CVs will put some limit to the torp spam too.

 

This. As much as I am playing more DD than BB, as much as I curse those damned planes, what is obviously missing is CV's at tier 10. That would answer the OP's concern as well as stopping the DD madness at those higher 2 tiers. For instance, went out in my Udaloy with a friend in his Kajero last night and there were 7 DD's on each team. As you can imagine the BB's took no part as it was torp spam. Cv's would bring balance again in this instance.

 

Apologies for diverting from the original whine concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[F_D]
Alpha Tester
1,194 posts
4,328 battles

Thing with Yamato is, that it is/was designed to dominate any other type of BB. While WG somehow managed to implement this aspect of the ship with quiet some success, it now leads to the mentioned playstyle, which is camping and sniping with the forward turrets.

 

You can see the same playstyle on NCs and Iowas too when they are top tier.

 

My impression is, that this playstyle is a combination of several factors:

  1. The benefit of having all your main batteries fire at the enemy ship is negated by the fact that you have to expose your side to become vulnerable to citadel hits.
  2. DDs cannot bypass the other ships of the team to get around to do torp runs with the limited size of the maps.
  3. The superstructure seems to absorb most of the hits.

 

Especially 3 is a problem because there is no real problem in taking hits to the superstructure in most cases. With AP the damage is neglectable in most cases and once the superstructure has absorbed enough damage it seems to simply not get damaged any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,015 posts
4,182 battles

Stop talking about buffs or debuffs for battleships and start arguing about bringing CVs back to higher tiers. Most of Yamato's shenanigans, specially the camping Yamato, wouldn't happen if a tier X CV just exists in the field.

 

CVs will put some limit to the torp spam too.

 

That! Un-nerf CVs so that CA's have a purpose again on higher tiers. Right now every match is infested with BBs and DDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
369 posts
1,516 battles

Switch out the heal mechanism on the Yamato/Montana.

decrease AA on yamato so Montana is superior in that department.

 

Yamato players can still ignore angling of ships but will be slightly handicapped in the above mentioned areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OMNI]
Players
775 posts
11,597 battles

 

That! Un-nerf CVs so that CA's have a purpose again on higher tiers. Right now every match is infested with BBs and DDs.

 

CA work just fine on high tiers. They don't need a CV around to make the useful.

 

Infact a CA at 15-17km is Yamato's only true nightmare. Yamato cannot do absolutely nothing to a CA at that range apart from pray that RNG gives me some fluke shot that citadels... but even that is not enough.

 

CV presence would change very little for the Yamato... it would just mean more CAs have to stay around it. It can still snipe from where it likes. The only change is in how the CA's play.

 

I am not saying that CV presence needs to be increased... just saying that it won't have the effect people in this thread are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×