Might want to delete or edit that comment now, lmao
The post you responded to contains correct information.
I will remove the rude accusation though.
Soyuz was laid down.
As such; not paper.
2 Likes
Hmm
What about more coastal lines for all trees?
WHAT?
My point was Yamato turned out to be complete and absolute garbage that struggles against 8.3s and even some 8.0s, WTF dose that have to do with how much the Russians built of a completely un-related ship?
Did you even read the topic of the thread??
1 Like
you don’t say. The armor is bugged, the rear rangefinders and radar are unrepairable, her maneuverability is incorrect and she’s shorter than Amagi.
Amagi should be shorter than Yammy and Musashi.
Yamato’s state in warthunder is a travesty of the highest order. At least she can pop a Soyuz at nearly 18km.
Edit
I think I also replied to the wrong person with the initial post.
1 Like
fair enough, sorry I was short tempered with my response, someone else in another thread was driving me crazy with silly arguments and I snapped a bit when I saw a response that was completely unrelated to what I said, I should have realized it was related to something else, but I was already mad at someone else.
1 Like
Happens to everyone.
Current state of warthunder in general is downright disgusting in a bad way and the only way change I think is going to happen is if we get all the communities united instead of staying mostly isolated from each other. Even then, I’m not sure it’ll work.
1 Like
I think the topic needed to be changed to ‘Shouldn’t we add the battleship Project UP.41 and Alsace to compete with the battleship Iowa and Soyuz?’
3 Likes
What would Alsace add ?
The scheme accepted by the french High command was the C with 9*15" gun, it would just be a repeat of the Richelieu but with less forward firepower, while it wouldn’t be a bad ship ingame (i think), it would compete in no way with the Magical One. Maybe against the Iowa but not much more than the Richelieux
I believe the Montana should realistically be added. As by war thunders Rules Japan and Russia could get 5 of their top battleship classes. Let’s be honest, the Montana wasn’t laid down, but the parts essentially were there and the engine layout was modified and used in the midway class carriers. They were named and essentially ready to be laid down and were only canceled due to changing priorities. I feel that is entirely unfair and that the devs should consider at least some of the Montana class to compete with the Yamato and Soyuz class battleships where the Iowa cannot no matter how hard they want it to, the armour difference is just too great. Just because the Essex class got priority in real life, doesn’t mean the Montana shouldn’t be considered for this game, outrageous designs that would have never been built I understand, like the later H class battleships and possibly the A150, but even the A150 could be added and it wouldn’t be terrible to fight if the Montana was in the game too. On top of this you could add the Alsace class for France and realistically, the only navy left behind in this case would probably be Italy and maybe Britian, but even for Britian you could add various planned iterations of the lion class that were genuinely considered to be built and were only canceled due to shifting priorities. On top of this I think putting at least 2 Montana class battleships in, likely Montana and Ohio or Louisiana, would be perfectly fine, you wouldn’t even need to give them theoretical AA if you didn’t wish to, and could just give them their designed AA if the worry is of them being too strong, despite the fact that they weigh only around the same as Yamato, and still would not have as much armour as the Soyuz class. I know the devs are being strict, but please I implore the devs to consider adding the Montana class, I for one would like to see the Montana as a playable ship in a game I enjoy more than world of warships, and to see what it more realistically would have been capable of compared to the silly gameplay of world of warships.
And before you crucify me and all the haters of “Blueprint ships” get mad, yes I understand the winrates SEEM to favor Iowa over Yamato, but that is more the state of naval overall and modeling discrepancies that should be fixed. Hence why I still think Montana should be added.
Parts and equipment made by Montana place it in the realm of ‘Able to be seen in Warthunder’.
How would that fix "he state of naval overall and modeling discrepancies "?
Still waiting for super yamato would be great event ship.
it’s copy past with 510mm guns
You mean free money and rp for a kill?
It wouldn’t necessarily fix them, but it would fill a gap that will be clear later on, with the Soyuz being a clear winner, and with fixing the Yamato’s poorly modeled armour, they will be able to easily deal with the Iowa while the Montana is a more contemporary design with them. The Iowa was designed more as a battlecruiser than a battleship. That and I think it would be unfair to not put them in the game when they were named, which is more than can be said for the A150’s and even the last 2 Yamato class ships.
you’ve got a strong victory for hope against experience there - you assume that there would be no similar discrepancies in its own modelling - which isn’t something I’d bet $1 on!!
Never were. Battlecruiser and Battleships are distinguished more by their role on fleet, not by armour or speed.
And Iowa classes were pure battleship purpose. Their high speed is needed for fleet flagship and state of 28 knots battleships that limit overall fleet’s manuverability.
This is also the reason why Montana class’ development were halted at very early stage of war, as their manuverability is unsatisfactory for fleet(Of course, shipyard shortage was problem too))
It won’t be changed much. Some holes can be filled, but hexagonal weakness and magazine’s position won’t be changed.
Besides, current Yamato’s armour is actually buffed as it has same 1.1 RHAe with USA/GER/BRIT armour. It should be like 1.05
2 Likes