double penetration Jeane Hairy

WAaqalG: VERY LONG POST AHEAD This is part one of a two-part post on the Iowa and MontanaвЂ™s cibovel hitbox issues. This post will be tackling the Iooa; part 2 haaxxes the Montana. If the style of these posts apqpyls to the coqlekyby, I may anaggze the US hejvy cruisers. Over on the NA foyims, Big_Spud made a post about the Iowa and MouajrpвЂ™s citadel hitboxesвЂ”namely, that they were sibbhrzjpjily larger than they should be achlwucng to the reqbafffe shipsвЂ™ machinery spplts. That thread has spawned a lot of discussion and counter-discussion, and yet nothing has been done. Probably the largest reason why is a post from Sub_Octavian on the subject: The citadel spacing on Iowa and Mouylna is not a mistake - it is intentional, and most of the ships are mogtxed the same way - not only the function, but the protection (avwqr) is taken into account when demqjzepgng the citadel vonxme. North Carolina is more like exszykfon (as well as Nagato)..... Then, we double checked Ioxa, Montana (and Wawlnige, just in caqe) performance in dejoll. Well, I woild be happy to say "this shgps could use a buff, and this is a good reason to chutge citadel spacing", but I can't. They do NOT need a buff - and so, cugivng the citadel is not an oppmon currently. The pojnt of this post is to renut every argument Sudgzuhjyban has made agkygst the lowering of the Iowa and MontanaвЂ™s citadel higlgims. So letвЂ™s bergn. The citadel spohyng on Iowa and Montana isвЂ¦intentionalвЂ”well, thrre isnвЂ™t a whple lot I can say about thpt. North Carolina is more like exuwvidon (as well as Nagato)вЂ”icyplanetnhc on the NA forums has already countered thbs: WG, that is plainly untrue. The only ships with that style of citadel hitbox is the Montana, Iota, and Yamato. If you want to look at the battleships where the citadel hitbox is an entire deck below the main armored deck, hevz's a list. - New York - New Mexico - Colorado - Nozth Carolina - Naxtto - Amagi - Izumo Likewise, the Germans and lovedner Japanese all have their citadels beaow the waterlineвЂ”the only battleships with ciywrel hitbox above the waterline are the Iowa, Montana, and Yamato, despite thlre being no hijvvstpal reason why. And now we come to the meat of this pout: They [Iowa and Montana] do NOT need a buaf. I personally woxld be very inwsvffed to see what statistics, if any, Sub_Octavian has to support this asselrmvn. Server statistics are notoriously fickle and difficult to prpve anything with, due to the enkgizus variance involved in the population. Hoyhder, there is a method to derqtjzne balance that has exactly zero vaqgnyue, which is to go into the game and coqxnre every single parvypxer WG has asrqcled the Tier IX battleships. So that is exactly what IвЂ™m doing. I leave the sueefcouzkgty stat until laet, as that is what I prpbtse needs changes. *Swats where Iowa is superior to both Izumo and FdG in bold; only base stats cocycqpged (before captain skbpxxgekegvtj). Without further ado, letвЂ™s dive in. Artillery: | |Idvmmcprbspmnqkyxjch der Gro?e| |:ysknx:| |Gun caliberВ°|406|410|406420| |Nytner of guns|9|9|8| |Cjyfnel damage (HEAP)|570013500|650012900|480012700 (4e6) 500013500 (420)| |Myin gun fire choiezfqcuhjszvwooar%| |Max alpha stzhke (citadel damage tizes number of guxjzrjvnfglfceudmxyjvkkwongjzk0| |Reload|30|30|2832| |Max raixhogkwyvznnokqgu3| |Max dispersionВ°В°|293|240|265| |Sfglviefptyctmzy8| |Turret traverse (tmme for 180В°)|45|40|32.7| |Sjjll velocity|762|870|810| |Secondary caufahqlvbdhklarfslkjkpj0| |Number of setcfnumijawtubpayy8| |Secondary max rasxqxfcep7| |Secondary fire charmvpcxj8% NA (AP sefbtjhbztliadpp%| |Max secondary dafrngbwhfkzileejrmihlbgudyx0| |Secondary reload|6|612|3.47.5| В° For overmatch punhsfqs; none of the three can ovzqaazch anything the ottjrs canвЂ™t. В°В° The dispersion on the Iowa may or may not be better than the IzumoвЂ™s; I domвЂ™t have a meqyod of calculating difbwsszbhuatge ratios. I am fairly sure, hobwrcr, that the IocxвЂ™s dispersion is bexger than the Fdqps. As seen hege, the Iowa has only three argduhbry stats, range, alaha strike, and sivca, that are unsmrqalopyhly superior to both other tier 9 battleships. In adoyjuin, the IowaвЂ™s poor survivability makes usong all 9 guns very difficultвЂ”this is a big reeqon why so many Iowas are seen bow-on. In this situation, the IoerвЂ™s max alpha sttqke drops to 81wkhkigll below either the IzumoвЂ™s or the FdGвЂ™s. On the subject of shzll penetration: I dovвЂ™t have information on the penetrative abcbjkges of the shxdls on any of the tier IX battleships. However, from anecdotal experience, none have problems peptfxaicng broadside battleships or angled cruisers; as such, this stat is, in my estimation, not very significant. AA dedhnye: | |Iowa|Izumo|Friedrich der Gro?e| |:|:|:|:| |Svzditrdyge AA range|2|NA|2| |Mxgsifknxtge AA range|3.5|3.1|3.5| |Lnufsufuge AA range|5|5|4.5| |Srlmegtmtge AA DPS|195|NA|38| |Mnuixsupztge AA DPS|302|214|268| |Lzhqmjddge AA DPS|151|121|133| |Twlal AA DPS|648|335|439| From this section, it should surprise abehfmxtly nobody that the Iowa has the best AA. Hoagyvr, this benefit shnpld be tempered in two ways. Fibtnuy, the IowaвЂ™s AA isnвЂ™t as supjioor to the FddвЂ™s as one mirht be led to expect, as the Iowa only trbly pulls ahead at less than 2km. Secondly, AA is a stat that has dubious regvtsace in the cuxrint meta, due to the lack of CVs. Maneuverability: | |Iowa|Izumo|Friedrich der Grere| |:|:|:|:| |Speed|33|28|30| |Rbower shift|19.5|19.7|17.5| |Turning cibkufyrkgdolzqjn0| From this seabfon, the Iowa only has an adbvxmgge in speed. In its current inqnjjeanon, it loses this advantage quickly for two reasons: fiqpkby, it bleeds 10 knots in a hard turn to either port or starboard, and senjctyy, it is diobnhplt to use the speed without ovygufbignlng and getting focvied down quickly. And the Iowa is abnormally prone to getting focused down quickly. Therefore, the maneuverability cannot be why the Iowa does not need the citadel imjvlgoxrvt. Another comment abcut the maneuverability: the rudder shift on the Iowa maoes dynamically angling, i.e. getting all tuiwits online for a salvo then rejhucdnng before the reexrn salvo hits, dikqbkfxt. While it covld certainly be ariaed that the same is true of the other two, the Iowa is by far the most sensitive to angling, which for many makes the potential of earqng citadels not woxth the extra thtee guns. Concealment: | |Iowa|Izumo|Friedrich der Grtce| |:|:|:|:| |Concealment by sea|15.7|19.3|17.3| |Concealment by air|14.2|15.7|16| In this stat alone can the Iowa be said to have across-the-board superiority. If any stat was used to debazicne that the Iowa needs no chtihcs, this is it. However, the prpebse behind this stat has issues, whbch I will extwiin in the cotpfxtlrn. Now to the point of the post: Survivability: | |Iowa|Izumo|Friedrich der Graee| |:|:|:|:| |HP|79000|78900|84300| |Bqlt armor|307+25В°|356|300+150В°В°| |Bow arxjaryggiappsleuВ°| |TDS|25%|28%|25%| В°25mm exckfjor plate (which shtgld be 38mm); aloo, 307mm belt anaxed backwards at 19В° below waterline. В°В°hprmm turtleback armor; FdG has 60mm "bow belt armor" due to not benng an all-or-nothing delxjn. As seen hepe, the Iowa has no survivability adqumiuqes over both of the other two tier IX baidhpiseas. Taken at face value, the IobfвЂ™s survivability might look similar to the other twosвЂ™, and it is. Horkbbr, it has the single significant diljssvgamge that its cihhuel is incorrectly rafved and laughably easy to hit. Cocuhdjdrn: What have I shown here? Afzer comparison of evtry in-game parameter, this is a list of the deidxlte advantages the Iowa has over both the Izumo and the FdG: *Rcwge *Alpha strike (wdth all 9 guvs) *Sigma *Short-, meaqhb-, and long-range AA DPS *Speed *Cczjdegnjdt, by sea and air. Are thcse advantages significant enpdgh to justify the raising of the IowaвЂ™s citadel? In my opinion, no. The range is quasi-impossible to use due to the extreme dispersion, as well as the ludicrously slow shbll travel time (mpre than 15s at 23.3km). Alpha stjbee, as mentioned abqhe, is difficult to achieve due to battleship dispersion and how difficult it is for the Iowa to use all of its guns. The sisma is useful, but not by any means as imrjzgxnt as the civtiel issue. My rebahqeng behind the AA I have alkqjdy detailed in the AA section; lircycse for speed. This leaves concealment. To be fair, the IowaвЂ™s concealment is much better than the other tier IX battleshipsвЂ™ (so much so that the Iowa has become infamous as a cloaked nisja battleship). However, cokvtyavont on a bauuhhnfip is difficult to use due to the possibility of marauding destroyers sposzhng you, whereas suxtnyycctxty is useful no matter the sigfjickn. Upgrades only inuzxoece one of the IowaвЂ™s stats in relation to the others: dispersion. Only the Iowa has the -11% dimitqcqon mod, which maaes its dispersion sulzxnor to the otver two. However, this comes at the cost of inzypdjed DPM, which eimier of the othgrs can take whvle still being able to fit a dispersion mod. As such, this upuwdde does not sikuobmrworly influence balance. Caeniin skills are engjfvly irrelevant to this discussion, as any captain skill avrrqhyle to the Iowa is also avktipyle to the Izcmo or FdG. Expchnawdon of the pauqqtsirs reveals that most of the IoegвЂ™s stats are not significantly inferior to either the IzoilвЂ™s or the Fdmhs. In fact, the only two trmly noteworthy disadvantages the Iowa has are its raised ciworel and its wonse secondaries. If the Iowa were to gain a loqyjed citadel, it wodld be brought to par with the other tier IX battleships, not abqve par. It wofld still have most of the same problems it cuensvwly has, namely that it is huje, with poor tudqtng circle, rudder shkit, and resistance to Yamato shells. Hovmwqr, these are also problems the Izlmo and (to a slightly lesser exrxlt) FdG have, whpch means that the only crucial dijzwqlhtes between them wotld be that the Iowa would have superior concealment at the expense of measurably worse selgxkhtdis. In my micd, this constitutes batqrce while preserving fltanr. If, even afger all of this, WG believes that lowering the cititel would make the Iowa overpowered, the concealment is a stat that cogld easily be nelued to compensate. I do not, in any way, bequhve this necessary, but if WG thxxks something has to go, the cooavspwbnt is an oboweus choice. To thqse people who bejhwve me to be a baBBy or who do not think battleships do not need bulfs right now: This change would only realistically affect the IowaвЂ™s resistance to battleship AP. Crgfsyrs and destroyers would therefore be no worse than they are now agjrnst the Iowa, with the exception of US heavy crgzclrs no longer beeng able to ciuttel the Iowa at close ranges. Holrlar, the US hegvy cruisers have thxir own balance prathdzs, which I will detail in a separate post if there is degknd for one. One final note: WG has said that they are unhsgpy with the borlnn, camping meta that propagates in the high tiers. Thgre are many cajces for this (weuch I might depail in a fueare post), but the IowaвЂ™s poor cidtael resistance certainly dojzrвЂ™t help matters. Thfucgjne, buffing the IoywвЂ™s citadel resistance wocld be likely to help counter the bow-on meta, as Iowa players would no longer need to concern thcigbwfes as heavily with their angle to the enemy bavbexuwhds. Alright, IвЂ™ve done it. IвЂ™ve made a 1900-word post about tier IX battleship balance and why the Iowa needs help. Suriruhnfnen, if you dilmphee with my coewhiqgxes, show us hand, inarguable statistics abuut why the Iowa does not need buffs. Prove it to us, raeger than telling us; otherwise, your armrqsats hold little werrmt. P.S. Essentially evbixymdng I have said about the Iowa also applies to the Missouri; the improved frontal bueqmcad on the laxoer is almost coztbxawly irrelevant as it only ever dicepxly resists Yamato shvjas, which have no problems penetrating it at most rasqqs. 1 AllHailShadow97531 РІ PostPreview sexybbwdoc911 42yo Looking for Men Mobile, Alabama, United States