Jump to content
Yakumo_san

Colorado - Inferior, but not necessarily bad?

Recommended Posts

After 18 games in both the Colorado and Fuso... i average 77k in Fuso with 2 kills/game but only 49k in Colorado with .98 kills/game

The 3 stats in which the Colorado is better are, planes shot down (no surprise here), accuracy (21% vs. 25%), which i weird since i feel the Fuso to be more accurate and defense points, which i attribute the the Colorado being so slow that your still close to the cap, so you get defense points . It might be that since the Fuso has more guns it either feels more accurate or it simply misses more because the guns are spaced out much more and it has much longer range.

The Fuso is faster and has more HP... and also better range, heck the Kongo does too

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3 stats in which the Colorado is better are, planes shot down (no surprise here), accuracy (21% vs. 25%), which i weird since i feel the Fuso to be more accurate and defense points, which i attribute the the Colorado being so slow that your still close to the cap, so you get defense points . It might be that since the Fuso has more guns it either feels more accurate or it simply misses more because the guns are spaced out much more and it has much longer range.

As far as dispersion, Fuso is almost certainly more accurate. If I had to guess, it's because Fuso takes long range, low probability shots that Colorado can't.

I'm not in the mood to write up the whole effortpost right now (and this would be a weird spot for it), but as far as evidence goes max dispersion is just a linear function of range. The function varies with nation and ship class, but for a given nation and class max dispersion has nothing to do with the gun, only the range. They could be doing something funny with nonlinear dispersion if you're firing at less than your ship's maximum range, but it seems unlikely considering Wargaming.

If they existed, Japanese battleship guns of equal max range would be more accurate than Colorado guns: 204 m dispersion versus 227 on Colorado.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the biggest problem is that we have zero idea on how accuracy vs range works, other than that the devs can change different range bands.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the biggest problem is that we have zero idea on how accuracy vs range works, other than that the devs can change different range bands.

I really wish they'd post those curves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We know it's non linear. The sub 3km buff to BB accuracy demonstrates that the devs can massage dispersion numbers across range bands.

There's a bit more than that.

Max dispersion is obviously a linear function of range, so let's go from there.

I'm not sure dispersion/range is calculated exactly the same as max dispersion (this would be easy to test though, US battleships should have ~1/3 smaller dispersion radius at 1 km if it is) but I'm inclined to believe that dispersion/range is a linear equation as of this patch. Unlike tanks, however, dispersion isn't 0 at point blank range. It doesn't make physical sense, but the game data support it.

The patch that reduces accuracy below 3 km, then, would likely just make it a piecewise function. You'd calculate dispersion with one linear function at range<3 and another at range>3, and the two functions would give equal values at range=3.

I highly doubt that the calculation for longitudinal dispersion (which I think is what max dispersion measures, dispersion on the range axis seems smaller) is any more complicated than a piecewise linear function. It wouldn't make physical sense and wouldn't have any appreciable effect on gameplay.

 

Effortpost coming maybe.

 

 

edit: anyway back to what I was saying before, that kind of change won't likely make US battleships more accurate than Japanese at any range they weren't already. "Something funny with nonlinear dispersion" would have to be pointlessly complicated, considering it wouldn't be much use for ship balance. Like different second derivatives for US and Japanese battleship dispersion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wish I still had the old alpha client around, from back when everything had arti view and dispersion circles.  Could solve this mystery pretty quick, as I imagine the workings haven't changed much.  Outside of the removal of the triple circle, that is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wish I still had the old alpha client around, from back when everything had arti view and dispersion circles.  Could solve this mystery pretty quick, as I imagine the workings haven't changed much.  Outside of the removal of the triple circle, that is.

I don't know why Wargaming always hides so many values and stats and decides that it's better for other people to go dig into their own game and find about the inner-workings or secrets of their game mechanics. While I guess there's a bit of "fun" and challenge, separating the invested players from those who can't be bothered, well, the lack of transparency has always bothered me. Vehicle stats in WoT often have the same trouble, but things like tank inspector and the like have cracked down on part of that problem... (still think WG should have done that themselves)

More on the topic though, I've been in a division with Yoyoya and we've been both running -do BBs... save that my BB's name begun with "Naga" ( O wO)
We constantly had similar performance in nearly all aspects, save for the part where he could shoot down a lot more planes than I could because USA AA. Funnily, both of us complained a lot when fighting New Mexicos, because retard citadel locations on the latter. The more I think about it the more I think that their cit hitboxes are bugged, although ironically, I did remove 20k+ HP with double cits on a New Mexico as I was complaining... as I usually think, magazine citadels appear to happen more often.

All in all though, if the Colorado gets all this hate yet is apparently a still respectable ship, I don't get why no one makes horribad threads of how the Nagato is vs the Fuso. Interestingly, the Nagato seems to be one of the most played BBs on the US server...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nagato has inferior reload, less guns, and slightly less range. The Nagato also barely has better AA compared to the Fuso, which itself barely has better AA than the Kongo. What you mostly get with the Nagato is higher penetration and Alpha, better shell travel characteristics and secondaries that rip DDs and Cruisers apart. Better turning responsiveness too I suppose. Heck, even BBs that sit in your secondaries range will suffer. The thing is though, to make all of this work, you need more skill, making the Nagato a harder to play ship, definitely a difference from Fuso's incredible RoF and 12 guns which melt any cruisers it meets. Also, Nagato appears really susceptible to penetration AP damage because it's got a lot more armor than the Fuso... but not enough to make enemy fire bounce. It's like the armor upgrade is only relevant when angling frontally - anywhere else the armor increase actually serves to increase the damage you receive...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nagato has inferior reload, less guns, and slightly less range. The Nagato also barely has better AA compared to the Fuso, which itself barely has better AA than the Kongo. What you mostly get with the Nagato is higher penetration and Alpha, better shell travel characteristics and secondaries that rip DDs and Cruisers apart. Better turning responsiveness too I suppose. Heck, even BBs that sit in your secondaries range will suffer. The thing is though, to make all of this work, you need more skill, making the Nagato a harder to play ship, definitely a difference from Fuso's incredible RoF and 12 guns which melt any cruisers it meets. Also, Nagato appears really susceptible to penetration AP damage because it's got a lot more armor than the Fuso... but not enough to make enemy fire bounce. It's like the armor upgrade is only relevant when angling frontally - anywhere else the armor increase actually serves to increase the damage you receive...

It doesn't help that parts of the superstructure gained armor... just enough armor to make 6-inch AP not overpen (and if angled, most likely IJN 8-inch AP too). Yeah RiP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I borrowed some data from our friends over at WarshipStats.com to see if there are numbers to support our theories.  Of course, they'll be the first to say the data is not without flaws, but it is a good starting place.

 

On the NA server:

Colorado has the 3rd worst average win rate, at 44.9%.  Baltimore and Kagero scored 0.5 and 0.7 points lower.

Its average damage of 40,068 is lower than Kongo, New Mexico, and Fuso.  Nagato, its theoretical same tier rival, beats that mark by 13k.  

I've heard Colorado called a defensive battleship, and people here have spoken to the durability of its citadels.  It's 6th worst in survivability among BBs.  It beats both tier 3s and 4s, and the poor Izumo.  

It does live up to its AA hype.  It's 7th best in average plane kills, beating out Nagato and every lower tier ship.  Hard to pull much data from this figure, though, as the number of potential air kills increases rapidly as tiers increase.  It does, however, beat Nagato by nearly a full kill.

Its ship kill rate is 2nd worst among BBs.  One of only 7 to score less than 1 per.  Its 0.69 just edges out Myogi's 0.68 to keep it from being rock bottom.  That's good for 6th worst overall, with Bogue, Langley, Chester and Wickes having worse showings.  

Its poor survival and kill rates combine for the absolute worst K:D rate among BBs.  That's 5th worst overall, beating out the tier 4, 5, 6 and 8 US CVs.  

It's around the middle of the pack in average xp.  It does notably fall behind both T6 BBs here.  

 

It seems North Carolina is a powerful motivator.  73% of players who have games logged in Colorado have also logged games in North Carolina.  Just under half of Nagato players have played Amagi.  These are fairly small sample sizes, though.  

 

So, the numbers suggest Colorado is both inferior and bad.  It can certainly shine in the right hands, and is far from useless, but it is one of the worst performing ships in the game, and only the lowest tiers can vie for the title of worst BB in the game.

 

Edit:  The ship fares a bit better on EU.  It still puts up poor marks across the board, but is not such a clear "winner" for the worst BB title.  It's still out damaged by both T6 BBs, but manages to eclipse Kongo by less than 1k.  Still has second worst kill rate and K:D, but the Euros have driven some of their BBs to astonishingly low survival rates.  Izumo, Kawachi and South Carolina all come in under 40%.  Colorado's 46.8% is good for #8 from the bottom, and it beats Nagato by a full percentage point.  It also swaps spots with Izumo to "improve" to second worst BB win rate.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit:  The ship fares a bit better on EU.  It still puts up poor marks across the board, but is not such a clear "winner" for the worst BB title.  It's still out damaged by both T6 BBs, but manages to eclipse Kongo by less than 1k.  Still has second worst kill rate and K:D, but the Euros have driven some of their BBs to astonishingly low survival rates.  Izumo, Kawachi and South Carolina all come in under 40%.  Colorado's 46.8% is good for #8 from the bottom, and it beats Nagato by a full percentage point.  It also swaps spots with Izumo to "improve" to second worst BB win rate.  

The euros are probably more likely to play the Japanese lines first, and hence they play the American ships slightly better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The euros are probably more likely to play the Japanese lines first, and hence they play the American ships slightly better.

Makes sense.  There was a significantly higher number of Japanese ships on the bottom of the lists for EU.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which of the 3 BB's would you take in ranked battles?

- Warspite

- Colorado

- Nagato

Would you consider taking the New Mexico instead of the Colorado?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since it's purely tier 6/7, I'm gonna take the New Mex for sure. More barrels, more HP, better speed and manouvreable. Choice for me is clear.

(Choice is actually easy, because I don't have IJN ships or a Warspite and hate the Colorado with a burning passion....)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. The choices are Warspite, NM, Fuso and Nagato.

Nagato: Guns are arguably too big. Their range and RoF is solid. The secondaries are nice. The speed decent too. And it's armoured to hell and back with lots of hp.
Fuso: So many guns. So many long ranged guns. So many long ranged guns that fire fast. If this scene is dominated, as predicted by the devs, by cruisers and destroyers, then the Fuso is the antidote. But Myoko and Aobas can citadel you. 
New Mexico: Like the Fuso, except trading overwhelming firepower for being relatively rock solid. Probably too slow for the maps and spaces in question. In fact, I question whether a USN BB will ever be the right choice for 7v7 on Fault Line, North and... okay, maybe New Dawn. (Is it New Dawn?)
Warspite: The, ahem, poor man's Nagato. The guns are better. Everything else is pretty much almost the same, just a teeny bit worse (as to be expected for a one tier gap). On the plus side, it can repair better than anyone else.
Colorado: I guess I should mention it. The Colorado only becomes a factor if pairing off high-skill CV players in a sphere with low numbers of ships leads to bomber hell. That way everyone can huddle around the Colo and murder anything that looks like a plane. That said, I suspect it will go the other way, and the Colo will be left far, far behind.

I'm leaning towards the Nagato or Warspite (of the BBs, at least), but I were to take it seriously and have spare cash lying around, I suspect the Fuso would be my guy.

Edited by bathoz
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm finally...finally...FINALLY...done with the grind on the Colorado. 100 games exactly, 42 wins on this piece of crap. I threw almost every xp flag I had at the thing to shorten the grind. Didn't want to spend my free xp on it, but it took every inch of restraint to not click the button. Played 40 games more than the NM and still ended up with less kills. I think they put it in the tree just to see how dedicated you are to reaching tier 10. Heck, you could put an outboard motor on an M3Lee and it would make a better ship than the Colorado. It felt so good to press that "sell" button just now.

Aaahhhhh...that feels good to get that out of my system. Colorado...never...ever...ever...ever.  again. May you die slowly in a fire, like I did many, many, many times with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm at tier 5 in the USN BB line, and I was bored in recitation today so I was looking at warshipstats and their ship statistics at what is to come, across the NA server, the colorado has about 6k avg damage less than the new mexico, with an average win rate (for the colorado) of 44.5%, while the nm has an average wr of 48.6%. 

Just based on stats, hopefully the colorado gets some kind of buff before I get to it, cause war gaming does like to have their stats in order. So I'm thinking it's going to get buffed at some point, because to go up a tier and do 6k average less per game? That's messed up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You see higher tiers in the Colorado, but you have less barrels than the NM and crap dispersion. You need to be in closer range to do nice dmg with the Colorado (+/- 10km or less), but the higher you go, more range sniping occurs. You are not really suited for that. When you hit, you do hit hard, but I found the times that it happened a lot less common than with the NM or it's predecessors.

I'm not the best player, so I struggled maybe more than the better players to make it work. iChase did a nice YT-video on the Colorado with the skills, equipment and best playstyle. If you are going for the grind, watch that. It can help you get most out of the Colorado.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I'm so looking forward to the grind. Or maybe, not. I can see a metric shit ton of misery on the horizon. The lack of speed will only serve to exponentially magnify my shortcomings in positioning skills. The poor accuracy will only cause me to focus more on making good shots, which will further distract me from everything else, so I'll be trying to make shots when the rest of my team has fled the area, leaving me to be focused down by a half dozen ships, including 4 cruisers hosing me with fire starting HE. Oh joy..........

Link to post
Share on other sites

So - 6 months after the last post on this, I feel compelled to weigh in on my experiences in the Colorado.

For some reason, it is the best performance I have gotten out of any BB I have played in the game yet - damage wise - @ 63,225 per match with a 54% survival and a 1.15 ship/ 2.2 plane kill per match average.  I average more damage in it than my Tirpitz * (but I don't play that ship very well yet).  For me, the lack of speed forces me to stay near the center of the map - so I rarely extend one flank or the other and get focused down.  The small HP of the ship relative to every other BB even two tiers lower, is offset by it's ability to bounce shots routinely.  While the 16 inch guns are not especially accurate, as the range comes down they become very flat and very fast, allowing more frequent pens and citadels of cruisers and BB's. If I am going 1 v 1 a North Carolina, and the guy is a little lazy on his angling, I will beat him with 25k health to spare. The air defense from the C-Hull is 69 for me, while mostly good for self defense only, it still keeps air crews from testing me more than once.  Players  think it's a piece of crap, so they typically ignore my fire and then make lots of bad angle shots against it, wasting time and ammo when there are other ships they could more easily be damaging.  It's only 13 matches, but the damage has been ramping up hard since I got the B hull, and now the C.  My last 5 matches have been 55-105k, with 4 of them over 90k.  MM has not been kind either, I don't get tier 7 matches in this, even if I am the top tier BB, there are usually Bensons and Fubukis on the other team.  I have probably cursed myself to a string of sub 35k matches by typing this, but still, the Colorado's two glaring "weaknesses", small health pool and lack of speed, are not as bad as they seem relative to the ships ability to fight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest problem with the Colorado is the people driving it. I have seen more people in the Colorado giving me flat side shots than any BB player at T7 should. (Actually by T5 they should know better) This ship looks like a very good all sound BB. Good armor and good AA.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest weakness of the Colorado beyond the speed is the broadside armour scheme. The belt is tough but I can fire at the slab sides above it for mucho damage anyway. Angled it works but you get overmatched by any equal tier or higher BB (and Warspite I think). It's better than it was but it's still kind of meh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...