It was suggested that I analyze whether or not it was worth the credits and captains points to spec out certain ships for secondaries or to use them for other things. With the current data, this is almost impossible as it would be very difficult to collect the data or even run a small experiment due to the sheer number of possibilities. However, what I can do is make a determination on which ship has the best secondaries in the game – period. The top three contenders, for data that I currently have available (and there is not enough data yet for the Tirpitz – I may revisit this in the future), are the Bismark, Yamato, and Großer Kurfürst (G.K.). They all have a vast array of secondary guns that with the right modules, training, and flags are capable of engaging targets out to 10.6km. So how do they stack up against each other and who’s the best? First, let’s get a breakdown of the secondaries of each ship.
Using a one-way ANOVA, player performance for the tier ten battleships was analyzed based on win rate and average damage as well as the new, unpublished WoWReplays.com Ship Rating and Aggression Rating. Significant differences were found between all ships in all but aggression. While the Yamato is still the top performer, the G.K. is a close second while there is much need for a buff to the Montana.
As many high tier battleship players are aware, there is a noticeable difference between the three current tier ten battleships – Yamato, Montana and Großer Kurfürst (G.K.). As of the writing of this article Warships.Today reports the Yamato as the top performing ship, followed closely by the G.K. then the Montana (Table 1). Each ship has a slightly difference play style, which has largely been carried down through their respective tech trees. These differences in play style, in the hands of a good captain, should lead to similar performance statistics among the three top tier battle ships if the ships are truly balanced. Most players who have sailed all three, or at least the original two (Montana and Yamato), know that this is not the case and that the Montana tends to perform worse than the other two. This has also been noted by several community contributors in both the EU and NA. But is this a case of confirmation bias? As Table 1. outlines, though the win rates for the top two ships are identical, there is a difference in their damage, but is that difference significant? Further, there is a notable difference between the Montana and the other two ships, like before, are these differences significant? These are the questions I have sought to answer and have analyzed my current data batch to do just that.