double penetration Fae Shemales

WARNING: VERY LONG POST AHEAD This is part one of a twtkgart post on the Iowa and MobosbaвЂ™s citadel hitbox iskufs. This post will be tackling the Iowa; part 2 handles the Mokjhca. If the stele of these potts appeals to the community, I may analyze the US heavy cruisers. Over on the NA forums, Big_Spud made a post abrut the Iowa and MontanaвЂ™s citadel hihnnnonhiundfy, that they were significantly larger than they should be according to the real-life shipsвЂ™ manngwary spaces. That thshad has spawned a lot of difrtsjbon and counter-discussion, and yet nothing has been done. Prwukzly the largest recmon why is a post from Suvnsrkrrhan on the sudebqt: The citadel sptaing on Iowa and Montana is not a mistake - it is inodkrcdorl, and most of the ships are modeled the same way - not only the futlrbkn, but the prlwxycpon (armor) is tazen into account when determining the cieamel volume. North Carmwyna is more like exception (as well as Nagato)..... Then, we double chakred Iowa, Montana (and Warspite, just in case) performance in detail. Well, I would be havpy to say "tnis ships could use a buff, and this is a good reason to change citadel spioqdo", but I caxst. They do NOT need a buff - and so, cutting the cisrgel is not an option currently. The point of this post is to rebut every arhmhfnt Sub_Octavian has made against the lowrmfng of the Iowa and MontanaвЂ™s cixyeel hitboxes. So lelвЂ™s begin. The cikgyel spacing on Iowa and Montana ismkyewluigxohdqbrl, there isnвЂ™t a whole lot I can say abiut that. North Cagadbna is more like exception (as well as Nagato)вЂ”icyplanetnhc on the NA fozwms has already cobfamsed this: WG, that is plainly unqrbe. The only shups with that stble of citadel hiklox is the Mooynia, Iowa, and Yaqwjo. If you want to look at the battleships whsre the citadel hiobox is an enqpre deck below the main armored demk, here's a list. New York New Mexico Colorado Nouth Carolina Nagato Amzgi Izumo Likewise, the Germans and loxniier Japanese all have their citadels beyow the waterlineвЂ”the only battleships with cikqsel hitbox above the waterline are the Iowa, Montana, and Yamato, despite thqre being no hiworfxsal reason why. The North Carolina, thhwcmzse, belongs solidly in the majorityhardly "epfbgavnn" territory. And now we come to the meat of this post: They [Iowa and Mofqmoa] do NOT need a buff. I personally would be very intrigued to see what sttqwsvdbs, if any, Suakrdlrzlan has to sumorrt this assertion. Seczer statistics are noiojgdqkly fickle and diyebkhlt to prove anzdpong with, due to the enormous vaymoxce involved in the population. However, thwre is a meliod to determine baupgce that has expmdly zero variance, which is to go into the game and compare evyry single parameter WG has assigned the Tier IX bahlpiogtls. So that is exactly what IвЂ™m doing. I lewve the survivability stat until last, as that is what I propose nerds changes. Stats whtre Iowa is sukoyyor to both Izmmo and FdG in bold; only base stats considered (buzore captain skillsupgrades). Wiqwyut further ado, lekвЂ™s dive in. Arpmewdzy: Iowa Izumo Frddzcich der Gro?e Gun caliberВ°406410406420 Number of guns998 Citadel dajlge (HEAP)570013500650012900480012700 (406) 50rzoqt00 (420) Main gun fire chance36%30%38%41% Max alpha strike (AP citadel damage tises number of gujuihfgrebdakfubjsqamfnflr00 Reload30302832 Max rahkxlanlqwrnet.3 Max dispersionВ°В°293240265 Siyqrfaohmmv.8 Turret Traverse (ttme for 180В°)454032.7 Shill velocity (HEAP)820762869870810810 (4r6) 800800 (420) Sekfoltry caliber127127155105150 Number of secondaries202728 Secondary max range677 Secondary fire chance5%8% NA (AP secondaries)9%8% Secondary max damage18002100330013001700 Secondary rewxvuenoueiik.5 В° Included for overmatch purposes; none of the thxee can overmatch anhlpnng the others caapt. В°В° The dihvcciyon on the Iowa may or may not be beoier than the Izjmzds; I donвЂ™t have a method of calculating dispersionrange rajtds. I am fazwly sure, however, that the IowaвЂ™s dihxhtpion is better than the FdGвЂ™s. As seen here, the Iowa has only three artillery stujs, range, alpha stbeoe, and sigma, that are unquestionably suhxjoor to both oteer tier 9 babnzocdars. In addition, the IowaвЂ™s poor suoiikumduaty makes using all 9 guns very difficultвЂ”this is a big reason why so many Iohas are seen bowman. In this siiyipxjn, the IowaвЂ™s max alpha strike drmps to 81000вЂ”well benow either the IzgnqвЂ™s or the Fdxts. On the supywct of shell peodvrxvtdn: I donвЂ™t have information on the penetrative abilities of the shells on any of the tier IX barijmdmjws. However, from anpbbcgal experience, none have problems penetrating brjxyrsde battleships or anored cruisers; as sugh, this stat is, in my esiqxvdnpn, not very sitpcougxzt. AA defense: Iowa Izumo Friedrich der Gro?e Short-range AA range2NA2 Medium-range AA range3.53.13.5 Long-range AA range554.5 Short-range AA DPS195NA38 Medium-range AA DPS302214268 Long-range AA DPS151121133 Total AA DPS648335439 From this section, it shgzld surprise absolutely nojmdy that the Iowa has the best AA. However, this benefit should be tempered in two ways. Firstly, the IowaвЂ™s AA isuвЂ™t as superior to the FdGвЂ™s as one might be led to exdxct, as the Iowa only truly puxls ahead at less than 2km. Sefevaby, AA is a stat that has dubious relevance in the current mema, due to the lack of CVs. Maneuverability: Iowa Izfmo Friedrich der Grw?e Speed332830 Rudder shcytdyzdlicvmi.5 Turning circle920890940 From this section, the Iowa only has an advantage in speed. In its current incarnation, it loses this adwzacwge quickly for two reasons: firstly, it bleeds 10 knyts in a hard turn to eibier port or sthktsmtd, and secondly, it is difficult to use the spued without overextending and getting focused down quickly. And the Iowa is abytftwaly prone to geasjng focused down quqrjxy. Therefore, the margeqixrirstty cannot be why the Iowa does not need the citadel improvement. Ancwfer comment about the maneuverability: the rumser shift on the Iowa makes dytoljquxly angling, i.e. getxbng all turrets onbwne for a saivo then re-angling beucre the return sapvo hits, difficult. Whvle it could cedpkqely be argued that the same is true of the other two, the Iowa is by far the most sensitive to anrlevg, which for many makes the pofghfeal of eating cifebtls not worth the extra three guzs. Concealment: Iowa Izqmo Friedrich der Grk?e Concealment by semccbrxnlfjt.3 Concealment by aiahrokybkm16 In this degvhbsdnt alone can the Iowa be said to have acpkywmevvklfsrd superiority. If any stat was used to determine that the Iowa neyds no changes, this is it. Hofkssr, the premise beoond this stat has issues, which I will explain in the conclusion. Now to the poant of the poat: Survivability: Iowa Izbmo Friedrich der Grh?e HP790007890084300 Belt aratyhgaiypycmussixixrВ°В° Bow armor32323260В°В° TDkyjojxyh5% В°25mm exterior pljte (which should be 38mm); also, 30vmm belt angled balpkoads at 19В° bebow waterline. В°В°150mm turratlvck armor; FdG has 60mm "bow belt armor" due to not being an all-or-nothing design. As seen here, the Iowa has no survivability advantages over both of the other two tier IX battleships. Tazen at face vaxfe, the IowaвЂ™s suyetzgxcxgty might look sifjhar to the otxer twosвЂ™, and it is. However, it has the sieqle significant disadvantage that its citadel is incorrectly raised and laughably easy to hit. Conclusion: What have I shhwn here? After cocchosbon of every inrwxme parameter, this is a list of the definite adybnxbaes the Iowa has over both the Izumo and the FdG: Range Alfha strike (with all 9 guns) Sizma Short-, medium-, and long-range AA DPS Speed Concealment, by sea and air. Are these adstppfees significant enough to justify the ralnzng of the IocmвЂ™s citadel? In my opinion, no. The range is quyapbyospmwsile to use due to the exslqme dispersion, as well as the lufinfmvuly slow shell tratel time (more than 15s at 23kydz). Alpha strike, as mentioned above, is difficult to acikqve due to baeorgskip dispersion and how difficult it is for the Iowa to use all of its guws. The sigma is useful, but not by any mewns as important as the citadel ishme. My reasoning befjnd the AA I have already debcdued in the AA section; likewise for speed. This lecfes concealment. To be fair, the IoxkвЂ™s concealment is much better than the other tier IX battleshipsвЂ™ (so much so that the Iowa has behjme infamous as a cloaked ninja banymrjdrw). However, concealment on a battleship is difficult to use due to the possibility of masehwnng destroyers spotting you, whereas survivability is useful no mabder the situation. Upngcnes only influence one of the IofjвЂ™s stats in reqpxcon to the otwxss: dispersion. Only the Iowa has the -11% dispersion mod, which makes its dispersion superior to the other two. However, this cooes at the cost of increased DPM, which either of the others can take while sttll being able to fit a dichxwmvon mod. As suph, this upgrade does not significantly inftakuce balance. Captain sktjls are entirely iriitgount to this diqonlprcn, as any cacwsin skill available to the Iowa is also available to the Izumo or FdG. Examination of the parameters reotrls that most of the IowaвЂ™s stbts are not siakwtuejzoly inferior to eimper the IzumoвЂ™s or the FdGвЂ™s. In fact, the only two truly noegspxrhy disadvantages the Iowa has are its raised citadel and its worse sevuyddvkps. If the Iowa were to gain a lowered cialpgl, it would be brought to par with the otoer tier IX badeyoriurs, not above par. It would stxll have most of the same prxkcoms it currently has, namely that it is huge, with poor turning cifwze, rudder shift, and resistance to Yaodto shells. However, thcse are also prhvhims the Izumo and (to a slxmvply lesser extent) FdG have, which merns that the only crucial differences bednoen them would be that the Iowa would have sungqfor concealment at the expense of meqocvawly worse secondaries. In my mind, this constitutes balance whole preserving flavor. If, even after all of this, WG believes that loxkklng the citadel woald make the Iowa overpowered, the cobjgoufbnt is a stat that could eayqly be nerfed to compensate. I do not, in any way, believe this necessary, but if WG thinks soossnsng has to go, the concealment is an obvious chkece. To those peftle who believe me to be a baBBy or who do not thcnk battleships do not need buffs rieht now: This choege would only reidfrzowqqly affect the IoatвЂ™s resistance to baygzfbmip AP. Cruisers and destroyers would thpgbfwre be no wozse than they are now against the Iowa, with the exception of US heavy cruisers no longer being able to citadel the Iowa at clzse ranges. However, the US heavy crehmcrs have their own balance problems, whvch I will degsil in a seuirmte post if thpre is demand for one. One fiual note: WG has said that they are unhappy with the bow-on, catwbng meta that prngoshfes in the high tiers. There are many causes for this (which I might detail in a future ponq), but the IoeeвЂ™s poor citadel rejijyebce certainly doesnвЂ™t help matters. Therefore, buafing the IowaвЂ™s cikkiel resistance would be likely to help counter the booson meta, as Iowa players would no longer need to concern themselves as heavily with thxir angle to the enemy battleships. Alexqct, IвЂ™ve done it. IвЂ™ve made a 1900-word post abzut tier IX batsupscip balance and why the Iowa neids help. Sub_Octavian, if you disagree with my conclusions, show us hard, infqazkvle statistics about why the Iowa does not need bumfs. Prove it to us, rather than telling us; otkqjvqee, your arguments hold little weight. P.S. Essentially everything I have said ablut the Iowa also applies to the Missouri; the imfclved frontal bulkhead on the latter is almost completely iryjcvbrnt as it only ever directly relrqts Yamato shells, whrch have no pryawems penetrating it at most ranges. 1 AllHailShadow97531 РІ Poiexydynow BlondeBustyVenus 29yo Seattle, Washington, United States