|
|
-
California: Review
01. 13. 2014 08:56
fromage
|
This will be a brief review of what I've learned about the California, in case you're thinking of getting it at some point down the road.
The California uses L115 BH-427 modified 18" dual guns that resemble the L110 Mark 1 18" duals found on the regular Montana. While this is not the only gun choice you have, it is what I recommend. Your other gun choice is the L101 Mark 7 W23 16" triples, found on the EBB Missouri. Both sets of guns will allow up to five binds of ammo.
Here are some of the distinctions between both of the gun sets:
- Both gun sets will allow the ship to cap at 24/40 knots.
- The BH-427 duals have a tighter spread than their Mark 1 counterparts, which remains in tact even while rushing or withdrawing. In fact, the spread is noticeably good.
- The W23 triples have a worse spread than their Mark 7 Mod 1 counterparts (regular Montana guns). It is somewhat more difficult to land a full salvo with the W23 triples, though far from impossible.
- The BH-427 duals have a full salvo average that falls between 50k-52k damage, while the Mark 1 duals is somewhere between 46k-48k. The BH-427 duals have an AP salvo that I tested between 34k-41k, though the number of trials was fairly limited. The BH-427 duals were able to penetrate an AW L2 with HE shells at their max angle of 40 degrees, for salvos that ranged from 40k-50k.
- The BH-427 duals have range that is just shy of L2 range. You can probably hit any L2 that can hit you just by the nature of ship width alone.
Some other considerations:
- The California can hold up to five T5 scouts, six T4 scouts, six T3 scouts, seven T2 scouts, or nine T1 scouts.
- It can hold a considerably higher amount of bulge while maintaining 40 knots compared to the Montana.
- With a light/reduced crew and/or reduced ammo, it is possible to play with three W23 triple turrets and achieve 44 knots max speed with a salvo output of ~50k. Under similar conditions the Montana can only achieve 42 knots. I found this setup to be fairly effective in regular GB.
- There are six T-slots, which is utterly disappointing but already discussed in the release notes.
OVERALL REVIEW:
While not as spectacular as the dramatic release would have suggested, I can say that the California is fun. But there is a certain disappointment in retaining mediocre range with a ~12k-20k loss in salvo capability. The key benefits of this ship are the greatly improved spread, extra support slot, and the ability to hold the amount of bulge the Montana should've always been able to carry. Given the trade-offs and add-ons, I would personally like to see this level 113 ship have another very small increase in damage (2k-3k) or another few hairs of range so that it's truly a step up from the Montana.
Compared to my expectations for the tier and in terms of how much I enjoyed the ship: 8/10.
|
-
Re : California: Review
01. 14. 2014 01:50
fromage
|
Originally Posted by Hullsmasher
no i do not have the ship, i was reading your review of it. i apalogize if i erred in bind space, but helps make my point more. You get extra speed, bulge, range and support for a damage reduction on the heaviest hitting bb5. It may not be for you, i get it. Others might enjoy the different style it offers. you even say u can use mizz guns which have same damage although slightly worse spread(not impossible for full salvo) while going as high as 44 knots. l2 is mediocre bb5 range? do i need to own a the ship to read ? Not everything needs to be tweaked to personal preferences
You actually don't get better speed when the ship is played as it is intended. I mentioned that it was a possibility I had stumbled upon while searching through unconventional setups. I noted that it also required reduced crew (especially at L120) and only three guns instead of four. To be clear you can't go 44 knots and use the extra range together and you get less firepower. Furthermore, while the BH-427s are close to the L2 in range, they aren't numerically equal and a skilled player will be able to keep you at bay. I never said the W23s were worthless and/or that they had a horrible spread, but it is fact that the spread is less desirable than that of the Mark 7 Mod 1 triples. I believe the 44 knot setup was likely not anticipated. Again, this is an objective review with my personal thoughts at the end.
Originally Posted by Nyer
Stuff
Thanks for the clarification. I see what you're saying, and understand. I was expressing my opinion after an objective review. I would like to have seen a bit more capability from the ship besides the support slot and bulge (which arguably should be buffed for the Montana with subs as they are today). The opinion I shared about a damage increase still only puts it at 52-55k, which is still less than what is generally needed to one shot BB56. I feel the BH-427s/Mark 1s are still mediocre in range compared to the rest of the tier (see KM SN RM UK IJN), and a 50k salvo puts damage decently on the low side. I think my opinion has merit. Needless to say, this was a review and not a post in the suggestion forum. These are my personal opinions, having used the ship. Joris, I highly recommend the Proletariat. It's quite a beast. Everyone else, thank you for your remarks.
|
-
Re : California: Review
01. 14. 2014 02:43
Mpapadoras
|
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the clarification. I see what you're saying, and understand. I was expressing my opinion after an objective review. I would like to have seen a bit more capability from the ship besides the support slot and bulge (which arguably should be buffed for the Montana with subs as they are today). The opinion I shared about a damage increase still only puts it at 52-55k, which is still less than what is generally needed to one shot BB56. I feel the BH-427s/Mark 1s are still mediocre in range compared to the rest of the tier (see KM SN RM UK IJN), and a 50k salvo puts damage decently on the low side. I think my opinion has merit.
Needless to say, this was a review and not a post in the suggestion forum. These are my personal opinions, having used the ship.
Joris, I highly recommend the Proletariat. It's quite a beast.
Everyone else, thank you for your remarks.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks fromage, and yes the DMG output is way too low for what USN should be at this stage. The only thing we have had going for us the whole time was that the DMG capabilities of higher tier ships. With the removal of any useful aa years ago, and the constant slowing of our ships, it would have been nice to have that 1 hit power to compensate. Instead we get the worst AA battery of any ship ever built. Looking at this ship i just wonder what they were thinking when they pieced it together...
|
-
Re : California: Review
01. 14. 2014 06:47
![]()
joris92
|
I haven't seen any Proletariat's yet. Only someone with quads, least range...?
I wanted to know how the triples are, any oneshot power with those? I know the regular bb5 trips are realy good; I love the spread, angle and damage it does.
How did they interpret this on the Proletariat?
What should I imagine with a better spread with the French one? Close to blockshot? I know that the Alsace has a neat spread with lvl 120 gunners.
|
-
Re : California: Review
01. 14. 2014 08:16
nyerkovic
|
Originally Posted by Mpapadoras
In all actuality the discussion was to nerf the California's DMG output. The Calif can easily support the nebby guns with its much larger slots, but the trip 18s not available. Not a month ago the max disp was 30k higher than at release. As i stated over and over before release that the gun space was too large and the disp too low for it to be what it was meant to be. You can say it was to bring the nation "back in line" but it was done so there wouldnt be another USN 1 shotter. The gun range was nerfed severely back to bb5ish range (less than the monty). The DMG output was reduced also, so how is this an upgrade? The California i was expecting was going to be the beast USN needed after seeing the lack-luster Nebraska. But instead, a very small group of self-absorbed non-usn using players were aloud to nerf the Calif to what it is now, another mediocre USN ship. Check out the stats for gun size and displacement vs UK/RM and tell me you sont see favoritism that has plagued NF for 8 years. Thanks for the 3-legged dog, we love him just the same, but if you have any future BBs planned for USN, plz keep the biased members of the test team away from it.
Originally Posted by Mpapadoras
Thanks fromage, and yes the DMG output is way too low for what USN should be at this stage.
This is the perfect example of the scenario the Montana created. The Monty is ship who is not really in line with othe US Ships and here it clearly created the illusion that any ship after this should be able to 1 shot and outrange anyone.
Sorry, but the California won't be an overpowered Montana able to rival any BB6. Also, if you call the Nebraska a "lackluster" I have to seriously doubt the way in which you are using it.
Originally Posted by Mpapadoras
The only thing we have had going for us the whole time was that the DMG capabilities of higher tier ships. With the removal of any useful aa years ago, and the constant slowing of our ships, it would have been nice to have that 1 hit power to compensate.
Really? Damage is all you had going?... wow... no wonder you find USN bad at higher levels. High angle, high penetration guns, good speed, good AA (yes, good AA), decent range you have all of that going for you. If you need the 1 hit power to compensate... believe me it is not to compensate the lack of ship capabilities. Sorry, but your comments are extremely biased here. I hope you have played a nation which really lacks what you are asking here... try KM which lacks everything you are asking here and more and give the same opinion about USN (btw, KM is an awesome nation despite their weaknesses).
|
-
Re : California: Review
01. 14. 2014 08:32
EricIdle
|
True, anybody calling the nebby "lacklustre" shows that their opinions can't really be taken seriously.
|
-
Re : California: Review
01. 14. 2014 15:20
fromage
|
Like I said, it's a fun ship which I rate as 8/10. I'm not making a suggestion thread because it's not something I need to see happen. I just would've rated it higher if it was 52-55k. It goes without saying if you have skill the California can still be deadly.
|
-
Re : California: Review
01. 14. 2014 19:14
Hullsmasher
|
fromage i didnt mean to insult you and i do appreciate your review. i suppose i was a little zealous in jumping on your personal opinion of the damage, and after rereading i was too aggressive in my dissent. however your response of do you even own the ship was silly and probably would have taken a step back if server wasnt down . again thanks for the review, and apologize for any added drama
|
-
Re : California: Review
01. 16. 2014 21:11
CNR4806
|
Originally Posted by nyerkovic
good AA (yes, good AA)
I haven't played for a good while and I haven't grinded to the very end of USN, but good AA? Really?
To my understanding, back then when we still only had 4 nations, AA was decidedly "KM (Godly) >= IJN (Very good) >>> USN (Usable) >>>>>> UK (lol what AA)". And I'm fairly certain that AA of the original four nations have not been changed much (if at all) throughout these years. USN AA remains extremely short-ranged with the exception of the dual 6" DP, which is basically useless on anything that's not a Brooklyn or Cleveland.
Personally I've always been a USN player and of course haven't touched the new nations, but if you are claiming that USN has "good AA" on the ground that the new nations are introduced with crappy AA (note: I do not know if they are crap or not, but they damn better be), then I need to tell you that while having more useless crap does make USN look more "above average", it doesn't practically make it any better.
Either way, if the California is so much about "embracing USN's characteristics", which you listed AA as one of them, I really have to laugh at its 6 T slots because it's nothing more than an Alaska with more space for ammo.
|
-
Re : California: Review
01. 17. 2014 04:15
nyerkovic
|
Originally Posted by CNR4806
Originally Posted by nyerkovic
good AA (yes, good AA)
I haven't played for a good while and I haven't grinded to the very end of USN, but good AA? Really?
To my understanding, back then when we still only had 4 nations, AA was decidedly "KM (Godly) >= IJN (Very good) >>> USN (Usable) >>>>>> UK (lol what AA)". And I'm fairly certain that AA of the original four nations have not been changed much (if at all) throughout these years. USN AA remains extremely short-ranged with the exception of the dual 6" DP, which is basically useless on anything that's not a Brooklyn or Cleveland.
Personally I've always been a USN player and of course haven't touched the new nations, but if you are claiming that USN has "good AA" on the ground that the new nations are introduced with crappy AA (note: I do not know if they are crap or not, but they damn better be), then I need to tell you that while having more useless crap does make USN look more "above average", it doesn't practically make it any better.
Either way, if the California is so much about "embracing USN's characteristics", which you listed AA as one of them, I really have to laugh at its 6 T slots because it's nothing more than an Alaska with more space for ammo.
Don't take it out of context. Player claimed that Damage is all that the nation had going for them which is inaccurate as they have more things which were listed there. You are right in the AA accross nations, KM is great and so is IJN, USN has a usable AA which on some ships can be quite good depending on the T Slot platform (Monty has 10 T-slots)... not godly, not great, but good to shoot down a whole squad of planes. Is is unusable? No. Is it bad? No.
On that context, is damage the only thing? No.
I never claimed USN AA was above average and I never said that AA was one of the USN characteristics.
|
|
|
