Jump to content
Server Maintenance - January 18, 6:00 CET (5:00 UTC) Read more... ×
Server Maintenance - January 18, 6:00 CET (5:00 UTC) Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
El2aZeR

About the Iowa/Montana

4 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[YARRR]
Beta Tester
7,387 posts
13,800 battles

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:

The citadel spacing on Iowa and Montana is not a mistake - it is intentional, and most of the ships are modeled the same way - not only the function, but the protection (armor) is taken into account when determining the citadel volume. North Carolina is more like exception (as well as Nagato).

Ship stats are initially based on IRL stats, but then may be tweaked for balancing purposes, let's not forget we're talking about a game. This was the easy part of the answer.

 

Then, we double checked Iowa, Montana (and Warspite, just in case) performance in detail. Well, I would be happy to say "this ships could use a buff, and this is a good reason to change citadel spacing", but I can't. They do NOT need a buff - and so, cutting the citadel is not an option currently.

 

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*.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
990 posts
3,372 battles
The problem for USN battleship balance is that their performance has AA in mind, but it's a trait they can rarely put to good use. If the game had a proper meta with CVs in every match, the other nation BB would perform relatively worse than they do now because they have worse AA. With this ideal situation in mind (and with hopes that they will manage to bring CVs back eventually) I understand WG are reluctant to make any big changes to USN BB. If they buff the citadel armor now the Iowa will become slightly OP in its tier while the Montana will get to be on par with the other tier 10s, but it would mean both would become incredibly OP once the CV meta returns one day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
7,387 posts
13,800 battles

Honestly, neither the Iowa nor the Montana are particularly great at swatting down planes of the same tier. They only excel at the role if they're not the ship that's being targeted, which rarely happens. I can tell you from experience that an Iowa will crumble after two strikes from a Taiho without too significant losses to air groups (unless said Iowa is particularly potato and manages to get nuked in one).

What is important to understand here is that this would not be a buff to armor directly, but to lower the citadel down to the waterline like with other ships. If you cut away the splinter deck the height of the citadel would roughly be the same as the one found on the North Carolina. That is a more difficult target to hit, sure, but is it truly that hard to citadel a NoCar? I doubt this change would make the Iowa OP nor would it make the Monty competitive with its contemporaries, as they both have enough other drawbacks holding them down, but to say that they are currently undeserving of a buff thanks to their current performance is rather ludicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TF16]
[TF16]
Players
1,224 posts
15,395 battles

II'm sure that most of you mates know this website. 

http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

It's preety much realistic analysis of major factors for heavy vessels evaluation. Also several others references state clearly that in direct combat Iowa would beat Yamato down - mainly due to advanced combat systems like radar, tracking units and early so called "electronics".

In straight forward estimation Montana as intended to be superior to Iowa class should get Yamato down even easier. 

I know - wows is arcade game. But isn't so that WG pretends to create the ships accordingly to real facts...?

In reality both Iowa or Montana (if ever built) would crack Yamato down before she could efectivelly use 460 guns. I express efectivelly. Means hit...

 

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.

×