Sub_Octavian on Alabama’s Armor Model – more info


Hello good folks! Thank you so much for LOTS of feedback here. As you may have noticed, we are also conducting additional production test of Alabama over weekend with our ST team. We plan to introduce a couple of tweaks based on all data and feedback we receive and make sure that the ship is absolutely enjoyable and worthy upon her release. As I already said, your input is greatly valued, and we’re working to make the best of it.

Don’t worry, guys, no nerfs.
Actually, it won’t hurt if you know – the torpedo bulkhead Big_Spud mentioned is tapered as we proposed (we saw you mostly liked the idea). We also double checked the possibility to lower the citadel space down to engine deck (as done on NC) and eventually, decided to give it a try. It actually may stack well with good rudder shift and bring more CQ tactics to the ship. If it does not make ship OP, gives more players option not to bow-on and makes you happier about the ship..why not? We will check this, and if everything is OK, that will be her final state for release. The changes are taking effect in

6 thoughts on “Sub_Octavian on Alabama’s Armor Model – more info

  1. I’ve encountered three Alabamas so far – all on RU. Not sure who was driving them, but the ships all ended up towards the bottom of the results tables.

    First one was in a T9 game, and it vanished (deleted) within two minutes of being spotted. It wasn’t even a roflstomp match – I survived the game in a paper Schors.

    Second one more or less ditto.

    Third match I got about 2/3 of the damage on the Alabama and the kill in my Schors, from within normal fully-spotted gun range. I think the other 1/3 damage went to a Gneisenau near me.

    So, not terribly OP in my huge statistical sample…

    1. Well it all depends on the quality of the player doesn’t it, I’ve seen two EU Alabama driven by those with usernames I can’t remember with the ST-01 clantag and they were up at near the top of the list so yeah, RU just plain sucks 😛

  2. I have sneakung suspicion that supertesters arent the best players. Hmmm this might be why some ships that go live are so weak. Every Alabama i encountered on the EU server was also driven like the rudder was on sideways. Something to think about.

  3. apparently iChase made a video showing the citadel in Iowa and Montana cannot be lowered as much as some have proposed because the 5in magazines are placed above the boiler rooms (many propose to lower the citadel to the boiler/engine deck)
    I read a proposal to “scale” shell arcs ingame to IRL corresponding ranges, this would mean all-or-nothing designs, like USN top tier BBs, would be powerfull from mid-to-long range while turtle-back-armor designs, like german BBs, would still be powerfull at close range

    1. problem is that many ships have secondary magazines quit side citadel box, so then should we add that areas to it, making even German turtle back pointless at close range?

      still not only problem is with that “scaling”, but also with plugging fire: to be fact i only reached it with North Carolina AP round at around 20-22km were shells started to defeat auto bounce angle, problem is that at that range they had sufficient deck penetration to defeat even YAMATO 200MM DECK ARMOR, but just a little bit below 20km you cannot even defeat Bismarck 80mm deck due to auto bounce…

      so shells are generally missing a lot of deck penetration at mid ranges.

      still auto bounce greatly helps with cruiser survivability, but cause issues in BB vs BB battle.

Comments are closed.