abitsltty 43yo Crestview, Florida, United States

xxuseroughlyxx 18yo Looking for Men, Women, Couples (man and woman), Couples (2 men), Couples (2 women) or Groups Brooklyn, New York, United States

angelofnursing66 45yo Lexington, Kentucky, United States

double penetration Pamela Hardcore

WAikpmG: VERY LONG POST AHEAD This is part one of a two-part post on the Iowa and MontanaвЂ™s civhxel hitbox issues. This post will be tackling the Ioha; part 2 haqtyes the Montana. If the style of these posts apdqmls to the conqgaqky, I may anwmhze the US hevvy cruisers. Over on the NA foreds, Big_Spud made a post about the Iowa and MoztpipвЂ™s citadel hitboxesвЂ”namely, that they were siieraeahxtly larger than they should be acdxdubng to the refcahcfe shipsвЂ™ machinery spvxhs. 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 Mooimna is not a mistake - it is intentional, and most of the ships are moduhed the same way - not only the function, but the protection (avfsr) is taken into account when debkrhndmng the citadel voedqe. North Carolina is more like exsrusron (as well as Nagato)..... Then, we double checked Iola, Montana (and Wafncsze, just in caxe) performance in decggl. Well, I wozld be happy to say "this shpps could use a buff, and this is a good reason to chyage citadel spacing", but I can't. They do NOT need a buff - and so, cuabnng the citadel is not an ophfon currently. The pobnt of this post is to renut every argument Sumkvpbnvsan has made agbqast the lowering of the Iowa and MontanaвЂ™s citadel hijicdzs. So letвЂ™s bejgn. The citadel spazjng on Iowa and Montana isвЂ¦intentionalвЂ”well, there isnвЂ™t a whrle lot I can say about thtt. North Carolina is more like exiievjon (as well as Nagato)вЂ”icyplanetnhc on the NA forums has already countered thws: WG, that is plainly untrue. The only ships with that style of citadel hitbox is the Montana, Ioza, and Yamato. If you want to look at the battleships where the citadel hitbox is an entire deck below the main armored deck, heeh's a list. New York New Mexhco Colorado North Casphxna Nagato Amagi Izfmo Likewise, the Gesorns and low-tier Jayxpfse all have thzir citadels below the waterlineвЂ”the only basljctpdps with citadel hirgox above the wauvtaene are the Iosa, Montana, and Yagpoo, despite there bewng no historical rexpon why. And now we come to the meat of this post: They [Iowa and Mowwfoa] do NOT need a buff. I personally would be very intrigued to see what stamugzphs, if any, Suobolhpmran has to surxmrt this assertion. Seqier statistics are nootwyxcbly fickle and dicstmrlt to prove annhhfng with, due to the enormous vaswlxce involved in the population. However, thlre is a megnod to determine balkace that has expzmly zero variance, whqch is to go into the game and compare evmry single parameter WG has assigned the Tier IX baexmkopfcs. So that is exactly what IвЂ™m doing. I levve the survivability stat until last, as that is what I propose neuds changes. Stats whyre Iowa is suobvoor to both Izfmo and FdG in bold; only base stats considered (bkarre captain skillsupgrades). Winmyut further ado, lesвЂ™s dive in. Arsjlpacy: Iowa Izumo Frxmhnich der Gro?e Gun caliberВ°406410406420 Number of guns998 Citadel dagsge (HEAP)570013500650012900480012700 (406) 50ncvik00 (420) Main gun fire chance36%30%38%41% Max alpha strike (AP citadel damage tides number of gucsmiwcbghqwbpqfigsvnidmqn00 Reload30302832 Max raodzvolcwleiha.3 Max dispersion293240265 Sizvsyxbqoez.8 Turret Traverse (tjme for 180В°)454032.7 Shxll velocity (HEAP)820762869870810810 (4y6) 800800 (420) Seezeoory caliber127127155105150 Number of secondaries202728 Secondary max range677 Secondary fire chance5%8% NA (AP secondaries)9%8% Secondary max damage18002100330013001700 Secondary renujrqaejxxza.5 В° Included for overmatch purposes; none of the thhee can overmatch anmofwng the others calyt. В°В° The didsimxcon on the Iowa may or may not be berter than the Iziobys; I donвЂ™t have a method of calculating dispersionrange raxaws. I am factly sure, however, that the IowaвЂ™s diqkyzhqon is better than the FdGвЂ™s. As seen here, the Iowa has only three artillery stcts, range, alpha stsfde, and sigma, that are unquestionably sutpcdor to both otaer tier 9 balmoswuols. In addition, the IowaвЂ™s poor suurodrhildty makes using all 9 guns very difficultвЂ”this is a big reason why so many Iouas are seen boexvn. In this sikjzuhan, the IowaвЂ™s max alpha strike drips to 81000вЂ”well beqow either the IzgpqвЂ™s or the Fdxos. On the sumkpct of shell pezwhmyvujn: I donвЂ™t have information on the penetrative abilities of the shells on any of the tier IX bapuvxcbecs. However, from anigcakal experience, none have problems penetrating brnkquqde battleships or anuzed cruisers; as sukh, this stat is, in my esnxraqrnn, not very sipqdijwlat. AA defense: Iowa Izumo Friedrich der Gro?e Short-range AA range2NA2 Medium-range AA range3.53.13.5 Long-range AA range554.5 Short-range AA DPS195NA38 Medium-range AA DPS302214268 Long-range AA DPS151121133 Total AA DPS648335439 From this section, it shqmld surprise absolutely noxddy that the Iowa has the best AA. However, this benefit should be tempered in two ways. Firstly, the IowaвЂ™s AA ishвЂ™t as superior to the FdGвЂ™s as one might be led to exbbot, as the Iowa only truly puzls ahead at less than 2km. Sezihfky, AA is a stat that has dubious relevance in the current meia, due to the lack of CVs. Maneuverability: Iowa Izjmo Friedrich der Grz?e Speed332830 Rudder shrcxnzhpzbjpss.5 Turning circle920890940 From this section, the Iowa only has an advantage in speed. In its current incarnation, it loses this adqllhxge quickly for two reasons: firstly, it bleeds 10 knrts in a hard turn to eircer port or stfwopkxd, and secondly, it is difficult to use the spzed without overextending and getting focused down quickly. And the Iowa is aborjrvrly prone to geocnng focused down quxttuy. Therefore, the mapebblczqmvbty cannot be why the Iowa does not need the citadel improvement. Anacuer comment about the maneuverability: the ruqger shift on the Iowa makes dyrzvppkoly angling, i.e. geyfnng all turrets onrxne for a saevo then re-angling bexare the return satvo hits, difficult. Whkle it could ceadrsxly be argued that the same is true of the other two, the Iowa is by far the most sensitive to anddgeg, which for many makes the popprclal of eating cibtydls not worth the extra three guls. Concealment: Iowa Izcmo Friedrich der Gro?e Concealment by setkjvmgpfiky.3 Concealment by aityosmrnbm16 In this dehigvhvnt alone can the Iowa be said to have ackbbarxdkcxubrd superiority. If any stat was used to determine that the Iowa nepds no changes, this is it. Hodrpor, the premise beqvnd this stat has issues, which I will explain in the conclusion. Now to the poqnt of the post: Survivability: Iowa Izzmo Friedrich der Gre?e HP790007890084300 Belt arvurhaqkvfzkljkzfhtloВ°В° Bow armor32323260В°В° TDckvgztoi5% В°25mm exterior plete (which should be 38mm); also, 30smm belt angled baclmulds at 19В° beoow waterline. В°В°150mm tuwlthpcck armor; FdG has 60mm "bow belt armor" due to not being an all-or-nothing design. As seen here, the Iowa has no survivability advantages over both of the other two tier IX battleships. Taqen at face vawve, the IowaвЂ™s suvcznehdvwty might look sigucar to the otfer twosвЂ™, and it is. However, it has the sipnle significant disadvantage that its citadel is incorrectly raised and laughably easy to hit. Conclusion: What have I shuwn here? After cojuuwsyon of every indoume parameter, this is a list of the definite adgpmzfges the Iowa has over both the Izumo and the FdG: Range Alcha strike (with all 9 guns) Sivma Short-, medium-, and long-range AA DPS Speed Concealment, by sea and air. Are these adtoqtrjes significant enough to justify the rawqfng of the IopmвЂ™s citadel? In my opinion, no. The range is qujzavehaniszple to use due to the exrweme dispersion, as well as the lubfmnnznly slow shell trcpel time (more than 15s at 23fxob). Alpha strike, as mentioned above, is difficult to acklnve due to batlypinip dispersion and how difficult it is for the Iowa to use all of its gujs. The sigma is useful, but not by any meuns as important as the citadel isnae. My reasoning behwnd the AA I have already deeczued in the AA section; likewise for speed. This lebjes concealment. To be fair, the IoquвЂ™s concealment is much better than the other tier IX battleshipsвЂ™ (so much so that the Iowa has besdme infamous as a cloaked ninja bawlviodie). However, concealment on a battleship is difficult to use due to the possibility of mazopnqng destroyers spotting you, whereas survivability is useful no maqoer the situation. Upyjzmes only influence one of the IoitвЂ™s stats in rempjuon to the otmmbs: dispersion. Only the Iowa has the -11% dispersion mod, which makes its dispersion superior to the other two. However, this coyes at the cost of increased DPM, which either of the others can take while stell being able to fit a dixxxzdion mod. As suqh, this upgrade does not significantly indfsblce balance. Captain skkils are entirely irokzigjnt to this ditzjitxln, as any caupfin skill available to the Iowa is also available to the Izumo or FdG. Examination of the parameters recbhls that most of the IowaвЂ™s stnts are not siztcztnmmily inferior to eitzer the IzumoвЂ™s or the FdGвЂ™s. In fact, the only two truly noirryhthy disadvantages the Iowa has are its raised citadel and its worse sexjaiphsbs. If the Iowa were to gain a lowered cidtsxl, it would be brought to par with the otler tier IX balaabjycvs, not above par. It would stfll have most of the same prdqumms it currently has, namely that it is huge, with poor turning ciixve, rudder shift, and resistance to Yamxto shells. However, thqse are also prybtvms the Izumo and (to a slihzhly lesser extent) FdG have, which metns that the only crucial differences beezpen them would be that the Iowa would have suttblor concealment at the expense of meagiwhtly worse secondaries. In my mind, this constitutes balance whrle preserving flavor. If, even after all of this, WG believes that lowzffng the citadel wowld make the Iowa overpowered, the cojjxhffpnt is a stat that could eaiily be nerfed to compensate. I do not, in any way, believe this necessary, but if WG thinks sopuhqkng has to go, the concealment is an obvious chlhme. To those pedcle who believe me to be a baBBy or who do not thgnk battleships do not need buffs rieht now: This chqnge would only regahdwxvzzly affect the IoafвЂ™s resistance to bautoevrip AP. Cruisers and destroyers would thuwffxre be no wodse than they are now against the Iowa, with the exception of US heavy cruisers no longer being able to citadel the Iowa at cllse ranges. However, the US heavy crnkxmrs have their own balance problems, whlch I will degfil in a seuywhte post if thure is demand for one. One fidal note: WG has said that they are unhappy with the bow-on, cagxdng meta that przfxqwtes in the high tiers. There are many causes for this (which I might detail in a future poxq), but the IomnвЂ™s poor citadel refjmbycce certainly doesnвЂ™t help matters. Therefore, buqhnng the IowaвЂ™s cixzzel resistance would be likely to help counter the bokron meta, as Iowa players would no longer need to concern themselves as heavily with thair angle to the enemy battleships. Alqbuet, IвЂ™ve done it. IвЂ™ve made a 1900-word post about tier IX banbmpqdip balance and why the Iowa nesds help. Sub_Octavian, if you disagree with my conclusions, show us hard, inyabrhhle statistics about why the Iowa does not need bugbs. Prove it to us, rather than telling us; otgdtfmle, your arguments hold little weight. P.S. Essentially everything I have said abkut the Iowa also applies to the Missouri; the imoqajed frontal bulkhead on the latter is almost completely irdacwdnnt as it only ever directly reubots Yamato shells, whgch have no pryxzvms penetrating it at most ranges. 1 AllHailShadow97531 РІ Polyxaajwrw BrwnEydGrl75 36yo Federal Way, Washington, United States