These all mean that you can do damn well in the ship if you play well, but if you make mistakes, you simply won’t. Pro’s: Great guns (range, accuracy, pen, damage), second biggest hp pool, fairly agile for a tier 10 BB, lots of evil secondaries if specced for it, and great torpedo belt.Ĭon’s: Large detection radius, very vulnerable to fire, lots of superstructure, only 9 guns, the turrets are painfully slow, and AA is not great for a tier 10 BB, and a very easy to hit citadel when broadsiding. I’d much rather compare pro’s and con’s of the ship and see if they even each other out.
If people complained about the Iowa and Monty being crap cus of their citadels, it’s cus they played their ships wrong, pure and simple, so the statistics really aren’t a valid argument in my opinion. If you make a mistake by firing your Iowa’s guns while broadsiding towards a Yamato at 13km and thus get spotted, you should get punished if the Yamato catches you doing so. Less skilled players won’t get better if WG keeps giving them crutches like turtleback armour, lowered citadels and what not. That’s what got the Iowa and Montana citadels buffed, and despite loving the Iowa and Monty myself, I don’t think that was a good thing personally. That’s just catering to the low-skilled end of the playerbase, and while I do think they of course need to be able to play the game, I don’t think they should determine how ships are balanced. I wouldn’t look at the stats of a ship to determine whether or not it’s OP or not.
0 kommentar(er)
