Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Monolith_Preacher

Colorado - what's bad aside the range?

34 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Alpha Tester
266 posts
3,486 battles

as you can see, this is the General Discussions section and therefore, not one of "those" threads, not to mention there's another Colorado thread but not the "quality rant" version by sheer coincidence.

 

 

I'm just 7000 exp away from getting the Colorado with enough creds to buy and fully gear it(altho I'm stacking up free exp to get a slightly reliable hull)... Seeing some threads telling how horrible is this ship, I made a quick review with its modules and stuff and I've noticed the range.

 

I did not mind the range back in the previous ships. I can only hope that no cruiser can outrange me(which is the only thing that will make me hate its relatively short range) with the Colorado.

 

In preparation, I'd like to ask the following about the said ship

 

-the other stuff that makes the gameplay awful

-equipment to install

-a few tips on how to survive this "cringe" ship

 

 

That's all for now.

Thank you in advance _(:3

 

Edited by Kotono_Amaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,040 posts
1,326 battles

What's bad about it? Maybe the same thing why people think Fuso is better than Nagato, because the reduction in number of guns. Albeit tier7 BB guns are bigger, they are not as useful as having more guns of lower caliber in terms of dealing with general targets.

The only case where I prefer bigger guns over more smaller guns is dealing with other Battleships, in that case the higher penetration really comes into play.

 

Aside from that, maybe because of Colorado gun's dispersion, it is said to be astrocious. Not only that but the ship is 1 tier higher thus it gets matched against more unfavorable opponents.

 

Or so that's what I thought about it.

 

Some people might not have the same opinion though, in this case I liked how SideStrafe think about the ship:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

Part of the problem IMO is WG has grossly UNDERESTIMATED the increase in destructiveness the greater the calibre.

 

A 16" gun is not twice as deadly as an 8", it's FAR more so. The bursting charge of a 16" AP projectile from Colorado was about 26kg; the same charge for an 8" gun on Pensacola was ~1.7kg.

 

OK, so what about the comparison with the New Mexico? The NM's bursting charge for AP rounds was ~10.4kg.

 

So even a 14" AP round had less than half the explosives of the 16".

 

In short, the step up to 16" should see a GREAT increase in destructiveness, which justifies the smaller number of tubes and RoF. That's why navies did it, obviously.

 

But it isn't because WG reasons.

 

So, yes, the 16" armed BBs at tier 7 seem far worse than the 14" armed tier 6 ones.

Edited by Steeltrap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
266 posts
3,486 battles

Some people might not have the same opinion though, in this case I liked how SideStrafe think about the ship:

 

 

 

Now I remember how I skipped the AMX M4 1945 after hearing all negative reviews and now feeling bad about it :(

 

 

Guess I'll just go through this like the usual and RIP stats(currently 42%)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,677 posts

 

Now I remember how I skipped the AMX M4 1945 after hearing all negative reviews and now feeling bad about it :(

 

 

Guess I'll just go through this like the usual and RIP stats(currently 42%)

 

 

 

iirc I thought Colorado was a full-on slugging ship? last time I rolled with Nagato though she was solid but also slightly clunky.

 

to be fair for it though, its the last dread you'll ever have to sit on for the US since NoCal is just wonky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,083 posts
5,169 battles

that stock colorado hull sucks, back in cbt grinding 9k to get the next hull is already a hell and now in OB WG increase it up to 19, thanks Wargaming. i suggest you should start stocking free exp to get the next hull to make the colorado a little bit playable.

 

if only WG  remove that horrible stock hull and give maryland modernization hull to colorado then she might turn into a better ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,923 posts
4,018 battles

I can tell you when I play Colorado today everything is bad basically that Battleship is a 0 Anti-Air plane go too near there no AA to shot down them secondly the turning speed of the ships is badly food for CV thirdly the range is just all right and lastly 19k exp to Hull B which I think is too much!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1 post
4,058 battles

That's was painful with Hull A but it would be so much better with Hull B. Hull B has 40points AA and 15.5sec rudder shift time with steering gears modification 2, it is not that difficult to dodge from the torps. It got some problems like 21knots and SUPER inaccurate indeed. It is surely downgrade from New Mexico , but you can still get some hits and kills per game. I gain 1000 exp per game without premium and I think Colorado is okay for me. It is not really bad, you just need to spend more time and rounds to get the North Corolina.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,083 posts
5,169 battles

21 knots at teir 7 isn't a good idea when your teammates will speed away leaving you alone against other ships. 

 

yeah, specially most map at higher tier are large. that 21 knots is simply bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
773 posts
796 battles

It's not just the lack of guns.  In CBT the Colorado seemed weak, especially coming from the New Mexico which is very tough.  Maybe it's because the Colorado obviously will see higher tiers and so its getting hit with bigger guns but it just felt like it was soft and squishy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
760 posts
6,921 battles

It's not just the lack of guns.  In CBT the Colorado seemed weak, especially coming from the New Mexico which is very tough.  Maybe it's because the Colorado obviously will see higher tiers and so its getting hit with bigger guns but it just felt like it was soft and squishy.

 

Agreed, back in CBT colorado when stock was a big red target for all the enemy CV's especially when facing high tier IJN CV's with their millions of planes. Mind you when fully upgraded she is fairly decent in terms of self defence, and in OBT it appears as though WG have buffed her AA more and reduced North Carolinas a little ( can anyone verify?)

 

The biggest issue I had was the shot dispersion, even at close quarters the shot spread was alarmingly bad at times, you'd think they issued the sailors too much booze lol? But when they hit, boy do those 16" hit hard...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,718 posts
1,988 battles

If it's That slow and have such Poor Gun Range, I really don't understand why not give it better ROF and Turret Turn time.

 

Make Sense - It will struggle in long-range combat, but when it get closer it will be a powerhouse.

 

Guess WG think the Extra AA is already enough :sceptic: (Which is not and the Stock Grind is Terrible).

Edited by Alvin1020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

If it's That slow and have such Poor Gun Range, I really don't understand why not give it better ROF and Turret Turn time.

 

Make Sense - It will struggle in long-range combad, but when it get closer it will be a powerhouse.

 

Guess WG think the Extra AA is already enough :sceptic: (Which is not and the Stock Grind is Terrible).

 

WG relies on craptastically bad grinds to "encourage" free exp expenditure. It's a consistently negative game design philosophy and they've done it from day 1 in WoT so I don't expect it to change (tier 9 tanks, anyone?).

 

The sad part is SideStrafe is quite correct in saying that paying for 'free' (LOL) exp to avoid an otherwise [redacted] game play experience simply encourages devs to continue to provide [redacted] game play experiences throughout their games.

 

No, your reward for all that grinding shouldn't be a "oh great, how many [redacted] games do I have to put up with being a gimped PoS with harder MM before this new ship/tank I've spent so long reaching in fact becomes remotely competitive?" that it is now. 

 

If a dev can't find a way to make money while making every new vessel/tank a rewarding experience in and of themselves from the start then they're lazy/stupid.

Edited by Steeltrap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
771 posts
1,374 battles

 

Agreed, back in CBT colorado when stock was a big red target for all the enemy CV's especially when facing high tier IJN CV's with their millions of planes. Mind you when fully upgraded she is fairly decent in terms of self defence, and in OBT it appears as though WG have buffed her AA more and reduced North Carolinas a little ( can anyone verify?)

 

The biggest issue I had was the shot dispersion, even at close quarters the shot spread was alarmingly bad at times, you'd think they issued the sailors too much booze lol? But when they hit, boy do those 16" hit hard...

 

Only reason New mexico seems better than Colorado is because they are basically the same ship with a different version of the same fire power at different tiers, honestly i feel like Colorado will be removed at some point and replaced with another ship. 

Neither of the two are better than the other, one just gets better match making. 

Edited by Fear_the_Reaper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

 

Only reason New mexico seems better than Colorado is because they are basically the same ship with a different version of the same fire power at different tiers, honestly i feel like Colorado will be removed at some point and replaced with another ship. 

Neither of the two are better than the other, one just gets better match making. 

 

They could just as easily go with the South Dakota class that was planned then scrapped following the Naval Treaty of 1922.

 

21kt speed, heavily armoured for their day, 12 x 16" in 4 x 3 gun config. Also had 16 x 6" secondary guns in 8 x 1 mounts per side.

 

Had they been completed they would likely have been the most formidable gun ships in the world at the time.

 

Unlike some ships in the game, all 6 of them were under construction when scrapped, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,040 posts
1,326 battles

 

They could just as easily go with the South Dakota class that was planned then scrapped following the Naval Treaty of 1922.

 

21kt speed, heavily armoured for their day, 12 x 16" in 4 x 3 gun config. Also had 16 x 6" secondary guns in 8 x 1 mounts per side.

 

Had they been completed they would likely have been the most formidable gun ships in the world at the time.

 

Unlike some ships in the game, all 6 of them were under construction when scrapped, too.

 

IMO 12x 16inch gun would be too OP for tier7. It should be at tier8-9 atleast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
771 posts
1,374 battles

 

They could just as easily go with the South Dakota class that was planned then scrapped following the Naval Treaty of 1922.

 

21kt speed, heavily armoured for their day, 12 x 16" in 4 x 3 gun config. Also had 16 x 6" secondary guns in 8 x 1 mounts per side.

 

Had they been completed they would likely have been the most formidable gun ships in the world at the time.

 

Unlike some ships in the game, all 6 of them were under construction when scrapped, too.

 

Thats the thing steeltrap, i think they are going to replace it with that ship lol, that ship is the one you see on the loading screen with 4 guns in the turret aimed at a destroyer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

 

IMO 12x 16inch gun would be too OP for tier7. It should be at tier8-9 atleast.

 

Which is why I said the root of the problem is WG has significantly UNDERSTATED the increase in hitting power between 12", 14" and 16" guns.

 

If you did 50% more damage having 33% fewer wouldn't be such a drama. But you don't AFAIK.

 

If they won't amp up the damage a 16" does then having 8 of them is always going to be balls v 12 x 14". In which case having 12 x 16" would eliminate many of the perceived issues between tiers 6 and 7 BBs as they stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
771 posts
1,374 battles

Steeltrap this ship is the one you are talking about isnt it, Or is this ship something else? I am 90% sure its an American ship and its a bb. 

been waiting for them to add it to the game. 

WGLdhsS.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

 

Thats the thing steeltrap, i think they are going to replace it with that ship lol, that ship is the one you see on the loading screen with 4 guns in the turret aimed at a destroyer. 

 

Nope, it has 3 guns per turret.

 

That loading screen is a bit off. I think it is in fact 2 x 2 gun turrets but the angle makes it appear to be 4. The groups of 2 guns seem to be trained at slightly different angles, too.

 

The 4 gun turrets available in the war are KG5 class, Dunkerque and Richelieu. Don't think there are any others.

I suppose it could be a view of the KG5's forward 4 gun turret viewed from atop the 2 gun turret behind it.

 

Of course WG could have done the South Dakota as tier 8 and the North Carolina as tier 7, the SD being a slightly shorter and slightly better armoured NC in most respects and built slightly later. That would give about a 2kt speed difference between NC and Nagato instead of the ~5kt difference between Nagato and Colorado.

Edited by Steeltrap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
771 posts
1,374 battles

 

Nope, it has 3 guns per turret.

 

That loading screen is a bit off. I think it is in fact 2 x 2 gun turrets but the angle makes it appear to be 4.

 

The 4 gun turrets available in the war are KG5 class, Dunkerque and Richelieu. Don't think there are any others.

I suppose it could be a view of the KG5's forward 4 gun turret viewed from atop the 2 gun turret behind it.

 

Of course WG could have done the South Dakota as tier 8 and the North Carolina as tier 7, the SD being a slightly shorter and slightly better armoured NC in most respects and built slightly later. That would give about a 2kt speed difference between NC and Nagato instead of the ~5kt difference between Nagato and Colorado.

 

Hmm now that you mention it that could be the case, it is surely a new ship though, none in the game have AA mounts in top of the main batteries, maybe its from a different nation, that seems like a very Russian thing to do "No Ivan, you see once eardrum pop no problem" 
Edited by Fear_the_Reaper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

Those AA guns look like the IJN 25mm. Allies only used 2 or 4 barrel mounts for 20mm or 40mm from what I can find.

 

For all we know they're 8" guns (they look larger, but it's hard to know given an 8" gun isn't exactly small from up close), or simply a made up scene with no particular ship in mind.

Edited by Steeltrap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×