The various stats that make her generally inferior to Yamato as opposed to balanced in different areas, the Engrish, the firing penalty bug, any one of these things on their own would be a quirk of some sort but all these simultaneously struck me as deliberate. Warspite's lines do little to dissuade my opinion.
The format of text makes my posts come off as more bitter than I am.
The various stats that make her generally inferior to Yamato as opposed to balanced in different areas, the Engrish, the firing penalty bug, any one of these things on their own would be a quirk of some sort but all these simultaneously struck me as deliberate. Warspite's lines do little to dissuade my opinion.
The format of text makes my posts come off as more bitter than I am.
She is generally inferior to Yamato if the job involves blasting at heavily armored surface ships and being blasted in turn, which basically never occurred in reality but is basically a battleships job in the game. There's also the fact that Yamato 'weaknesses' were largely 'soft stats' that in an AU setting could be mitigated, and KC is basically such a setting which allows numerous experimental or limited issues systems to be grafted onto ships that never had them. Iowa would benefit less from this, as while with a theoretical budget for major refits some notable improvement to her protection might be possible it still wouldn't bring her up to Yamato's level.
That Iowa had any real advantages in reality (beside speed that allowed operation with carriers) was principally due to US technological advances rather then any inherent design features of the vessel itself. If Yamato was magically given US radars, AA guns, fire control computers, and better shells she would indisputably be the better ship for any operation that didn't involve having to operate closely with fast carriers. Which seems fairly represented in game where she's pretty much the best BB for any composition that needs to be 'fast', but not the ideal choice if speed isn't a factor.
Tk3997 said: Which seems fairly represented in game where she's pretty much the best BB for any composition that needs to be 'fast', but not the ideal choice if speed isn't a factor.
Iowa is quite versatile though. She can be used either in the main or the second fleet for combined fleet surface task force. Yamato is pretty much exclusively used for the main fleet. Having said that, the most ideal battleship for night battle is Bismarck.
From a technical standpoint, this entire post must have came out the back end of a bovine. Your argument basically boils down to 'I'd be as good as you if I tore out your eyes with a rusted hatchet', and that really doesn't fly.
Pardon the semi-rant, but this is a pet peeve of mine.
Rant hidden for viewing pleasure
You can't just 'give' a ship a better fire control system, to include Radar; that ship has to be built around it as it consumes a sizable chunk of the ship's internals. On top of that, it weighs a lot. As in 2580 tons (long) 'a lot' for the Iowas', all things considered. To give the Yamato a Fire Control System as powerful as the Iowa's, she has to either lose all of her Secondaries and Anti-Air guns and give up a full two inches of her belt armor and over an inch of her deck armor or lose a full 3 knots of speed. Keep in mind, the Yamato's 16.1in Belt Armor only weighed 3158 tons. This still does not address where they would find the room to put the machinery, and the Yamato was already a cramped and twisting labyrinth as it was. Either way, the Iowa would be the clear tactical winner as basically any naval battle between them would come down to the Iowa kiting Yamato until she either sank or ran out of fuel, because if she gave up speed her power plant would have to work overtime to get the same battle speed.
Likewise, you can't just 'give' a ship a better anti-air suite, something has to go to compensate (just as the Yamato lost two of her 6in turrets for her AA upgrade that still left her paling in comparison to the Iowa's early war AA suite when people called her naked). The Yamato's full AA-Suite weighed only 408.165 tons, the Iowa's weighed 1000.56 tons. To give the Yamato an Anti-Air suite as powerful as the Iowa's, either lose ~1.2 inches of belt armor and her (remaining) 6in guns, or lose a knot of speed. Either way, the Iowa would be the clear winner for aforementioned reasons.
Shells are also a factor that is designed with the ship in mind and vice versa (The Yamato's shell hoists could not handle the American 18in Super Heavy shells), but this is a negligible point that is easy to fix.
You give Yamato all of what you say and she would just be a really slow Iowa with trash armor and slightly more powerful guns that still could not hit the broadside of a barn OR a very powerful coastal monitor that still could not hit the broadside of a barn. The Japanese thought that a ~500 yard ranging error (1.08% of range) and a ~210 yard deflection error (0.45% of range) was excellent when fire was spotted for and the ship was sitting still. Fire control system would not help here without post-war technology, it was effectively gun error. While that looks good, and indeed it is, it's actually bad when compared to the Iowa's; and, mind you, that accuracy was from the Japaneses' Navy's (gunnery officers off the Yamato-class) own mouths (post war), so the reality was probably worse. The Iowa's guns in WW2 had a ranging error of only 164 yards or 0.387% of range and a deflection error of 43 yards or 0.101% of range, while the ship was maneuvering, and this was from data collected from their actual performance of the time (verses land targets) that was largely critical of the Iowa's performance! (Note: with '80s technology, the gunfire from the Iowas only got more accurate.)
Also, Nathan Okun, the world's leading expert on Naval Armor, insists that the Iowa-class battleship had what was literally the world's best belt armor scheme in history (and, as of 2013, still insists that the Iowa's belt armor would handily defeat the Yamato's 18in shells). Her compartmentalization was also far superior to the Yamato's, allowing her to ship almost as much water before rolling over (that '57,450 tons of reserve buoyancy' claim by the Japanese is baloney at worst and highly optimistic at best). (Note : The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia states on the Yamato's compartmentalization... "The ships had the controversial longitudinal bulkheads that characterized Japanese cruiser design between the wars, which may have actually increased the risk of capsizing due to flooding on one side of the ship.") The Iowa's power plants were and are of legendary capabilities, and were much less fuel hogs than the Yamato's, and they took a simply massive amount of space. The Iowa could be front and center on the line where the Yamato was held in the rear... on the same (resource) budget. In the end, which is the better gun when you need it, the slightly smaller one you have with you or the slightly bigger one you left at home? So, yes, the Iowa had very real advantages over the Yamato built into her design, as did the Yamato compared to the Iowa. The two ships were virtually equals design wise, except the Iowa had the critical edge of being better capable of situation control.
That being said, if you really want to argue technological advancement decided the ordeal, let's consider age of the ships. Compare the North Carolina and the Yamato, since they were roughly design contemporaries. The North Carolina enjoyed far superior accuracy, fire rate, radar, fire-control, anti-air, handling, compartmentalization, damage control (yes, a good deal of this was built into the design) and a superior power plant (durability), but suffered from similar speeds, comparatively paper-thin armor, and moderately weaker guns (that were still capable of wrecking the Yamato's deck armor at any range beyond roughly 23,000 yards because of reduced charges). So, a skilled Designated Marksman with a .308 and a 20 power scope verses a moderately capable Rifleman that has been given an .50cal M107 and no scope. I would like to point out that the North Carolina fired more practice shots in her training/gearing up period alone than the Yamato did in her entire service career. That being said, my money would be on the Showboat with American Blue Jackets as crewmen, circa 1944.
Oh, so that was not the type of Technological Advancement you meant? Doesn't matter, the differences between the two nations' naval and industrial technology levels is what makes a superior design; otherwise, everyone would be sailing around in dinghies armed with bows and arrows.
Tk3997 said:
Iowa would benefit less from this, as while with a theoretical budget for major refits some notable improvement to her protection might be possible it still wouldn't bring her up to Yamato's level.
This is also bovine excrement considering that the US Navy saw fit to remove parts of the Iowa's excellent belt armor scheme right after WW2 because it cost too much to maintain (and promptly paid for this in Korea, which was then fixed cheaply, giving us their present effective thickness. If they wanted to spend the money; the Torpedo Defense System could easily be overhauled, additional deck armor installed, a thicker STS Shell plate and an extra inch of belt armor applied just by replacing the Quad 40s with the new immediately post-war (but developed during the war) 3in guns (less of them) and removing most of the the 20mms and 2 of the 5in Twin mounts. They would only have ended up as heavy as they were in the 80s. The US Navy also passed up on many fire control upgrades to the Iowas that were underway at the end of the war (a few of these would be rushed into service for Korea), several radar upgrades (these did eventually get applied), and an entirely new faster burning powder type. Also, longer (but lighter) barrels were considered to extend the range of the Iowa's guns, since they found that roughly only 70% of the powder was burning in the 50 caliber barrel length; but this was discarded for obvious reasons (barrel life). So, sorry, no; the Iowas could have had many improvements made with major refits during an extended WW2 time frame; there was just no point to it when ~20 Essex-class CVs were sailing around the ocean.
the most ideal battleship for night battle is Bismarck.
That depends on the enemy composition. If it's the classic surface ship fleet then yes, Bisko Drei still reigns supreme as the go-to FBB for the escort fleet. But if it's against an installation fleet, Iowa comes out on top since the torpedo stat isn't counted in the damage calculations against installations at night. If we take the summer event as an example on who to use on the escort fleet, Iowa would be best for E-3 while Bisko Drei would be best for E-4. Of course, this is also assuming you don't get a shittier route for taking an FBB in the escort fleet.
It comes of more as "I'd move as fast as you if I had the same car as you", actually.
Just need to point it out.
As such, your rant, while true, proves his point.
See, that's the problem. A car is associated with you, not literally built into your head.
So, using speed as the argument, it becomes "I'd be faster than you if I hacked your legs off." Because, really, that's the thing. The Fire Control System of the Iowa was and is a vital organ on that ship, her actual eyes and ears, not binoculars. They actually tried to replace the Fire Control Systems on the Iowas in the 80s, but quickly found that it was not only impractical (the systems were still outperforming the digital equipment within their range) but outright impossible. They could upgrade the system, but they could not replace it as it was intertwined throughout the entire armored citadel. Fail Safe after fail safe after fail safe. The two 16in Directors, the four 5in Directors, the Local Gun Controls, the man battery trackers, the secondary battery trackers, every radar unit... all of this fed into the Fire Control Center.
So, no, I did not prove his point (which was that the Iowa had NO inherent design advantages/features over the Yamato), I rather championed the claim that his point was flawed. The US actually considered putting to sea a Battleship design that was very much like the Yamato, one of the early Montana designs called for 3 x 3 18in guns (or 4 x 2 18in guns). They eventually started tearing out parts and thinning the armor so they could include the massive fire control center, radar, combat engagement control, heavy AA batteries, and a stronger powerplant. The result was the Iowa design. So, my point, again, is if you give the Yamato everything that he claims made the difference then the Yamato would just be a very slow Iowa with thinner armor and slightly stronger guns that could not hit the broadside of a barn. Between the two of them, I'd still put my money on the American Blue Jacket, circa 1944. And that still does not address what magical pocket dimension that they were going to put all of that, because in order to house the Iowa's Fire Control Center, the Yamato would have to tear out four boilers (on the bright side, that would make up the weight; on the dark side, flank speed is now 21-23 kts).
If the Yamato really wanted to tangle with the Iowa, she really should have trained her eyes better and really, really should not have skipped leg day.
The Iowa firing penalty bug was already fixed several updates ago. Also, while stat-wise Iowa is only second best to the Yamatos, in actual game practice she's actually better and more practical due to soft stats like her speed and maintenance... which is actually reflective of any real world comparisons between the two.
Can't we just boil it down to 'Nipponese Nationalistic Whitewashing/Chest-thumping' and call it a day?
Not really, because it's not the case.
Really, once the bugs were fixed (and it was a bug, they have a LONG history of even dumber bugs - does anyone else remember when Kongou classed as a Heavy Cruiser for a month?), I actually think they did a fair representation of Iowa in terms of the game itself, and even with her characterization (thanks to a certain image hosted here). With two of her guns, she hits the Firepower Damage Cap, so Yamato is really no better offensively, her AA is phenomenal, her health and armor are great, and she even is more accurate than normal even without her guns (by a whopping 2% - which is a lot in RNG the game). She also has the Yamato-class' defense effect (does not suffer a severe loss of accuracy when in medium or worse damage) and can be in a fast fleet (which is the fleet you want 90% of the time). Really, between her and Yamato, there is really no reason to use Yamato unless you like her character more (a perfectly valid reason). Some of the Japanese players were actually complaining that Iowa obsoleted Yamato entirely because there was only usually one event map per event that justified using a Yamato, and now Iowa did it better for less cost.
The only real gripes that I have with her stats/effects is that: 1) They seem to have bought into the lie of the Iowas being poor at maneuvering. In reality they were more maneuverable than many Destroyer-classes from the war. For the Iowa-class, a hard turn (that is to say a full 180 degree turn, it's late and I forget the term for that) could be made in under 430 yards (not the lie of 'over 800 meters' - that was a usual 'leisurely' turn for those ships); the ship could go from 'full flank' to a dead stand still in less than the length of the ship; not to mention that her boilers (when already at full power) produced so much steam that after either of those she could be back to full speed in a matter of a few 'short' minutes. and 2) They did not give her the ability to carry Seaplane Bombers/Fighters. The Curtis SC Seahawk, as carried by all four of the Iowas in the closing months of the war, was better than Japan's best Seaplane Fighter in everything but gun load (mainly because of the US' reluctance to use anything larger than the .50cal on aircraft); plus, if the Iowa's seaplanes did not carry bombs, why did all four of them have bomb storage rooms for their seaplanes?
And both of these things I have gripes about are actually justifiable for gameplay reasons. There is such a thing as overpowered, Iowa in Kancolle is already pushing that as it is. Now imagine her Kai Ni, which she will eventually get (remember, every ship will eventually get a Kai Ni... soon(tm).)
Really, once the bugs were fixed (and it was a bug, they have a LONG history of even dumber bugs - does anyone else remember when Kongou classed as a Heavy Cruiser for a month?)
To be fair Kongou started off (and depending on from who you ask she never stopped being one) as a battlecruiser and her armor and guns were about equal to the American Alaska-class super-heavy cruiser.
I think the Engrish has more to do with Iowa knowing her "target audience" more than anything else. I'm pretty sure she deliberately mangles her English in order to be more appealing to Japanese Teitokus while Warspite just speaks the only language she knows. Besides, which one spent more time in Japan? ;)
I think the Engrish has more to do with Iowa knowing her "target audience" more than anything else. I'm pretty sure she deliberately mangles her English in order to be more appealing to Japanese Teitokus while Warspite just speaks the only language she knows. Besides, which one spent more time in Japan? ;)
Kongou of course considering she's as British as Warspite was, IIRC (she was built in England right?) :P
Can't we just boil it down to 'Nipponese Nationalistic Whitewashing/Chest-thumping' and call it a day?
Not really. If they were chest-thumping they could have done much more.
Really, the biggest thing to disagree about are the fact that Iowa's AA, while already higher than Yamato's, should actually be MUCH more than Yamato's, (because seriously, the difference between what AA the USN and IJN put on their ships is just ludicrous,) and a technical argument about armor and shell quality, rather than strict amount.
Iowa has better AA, speed, evasion, LOS, luck, and resource costs for a marginal loss of armor, firepower, HP, and spotter planes (which Iowa probably doesn't need with that LOS).
All told, I'll chalk that up as "game balance" or "disagreement on the technical details" more than "chest thumping, make USN look weak!"
Doesn't high AA not really scale anyways? At the level of Yamato and up, anyways
It may not scale strictly linearly just because there will be a bunch of guns all shooting at the same plane and you'll get overkill, (plus if you're talking battleships, the primaries and even secondaries could rattle the ship so much that they threw AA gunners off, or in the Yamato's case, the main guns could even knock any crew on the decks unconscious,) but basically speaking, WW2 AA was massively, massively inaccurate to the point that you needed to fire many thousands of rounds to get even a single hit. As such, putting double or even four times the AA on a ship would enable it to shoot down a target faster by sheer weight of odds, even when every gun that had an angle was firing on the same plane. (This was notably particularly helped by the Japanese strategic blunder decision to make suicide attacks later in the war with one plane targeting one ship at a time, since it meant that having every gun on the ship aimed directly at the one plane - flown by a kid with almost literally no training - that was flying in a direct line straight at the ship.)
Note that if you read the parts about tactics, they mention that USN crews were basically firing the instant a plane appeared on radar, even before they had any effective bead on the target, because simply putting as much lead in the air as they possibly could was more effective than aiming.
Also of note, historically, the Yamato was given a major overhaul just before Operation Ten-Go. They basically stripped out half Yamato's secondaries to QUADRUPLE the AA guns. (They knew what was coming, but it didn't help - the AA guns were manned in unarmored seats, so US escort fighter aircraft simply strafed Yamato's decks mercilessly with their machineguns until nobody was left to man the AA.) This quadrupling of AA - which is not reflected in KC Yamato Kai's stats - brought the total number of AA guns (162 x 25 mm) above Iowa's (80 x 40mm + 49 x 20 mm) in strict gun number, but the US guns fired about 50% faster, and had a heavier round that meant it took less actual hits to down a target, so most counts would still rate the Iowa as significantly more effective against AA even if you were to allow Yamato to have that quad AA boost.
Even if we're talking about pure gamey stats, just looking at a naval board game I have access to for a quick reference (Victory at Sea,) they rate the Iowa's AA by letting you roll 18 dice against aircraft, while the Yamato gets 10 dice. By comparison, in KC, it's 120 and 104.