Well. I have. I have every single ship in the British naval tree researched and im one mod away from spading Vanguard.
Soyuz is rather insane, even someone who has never played naval before will be able to see that clear as day.
It would be trivial to at a bare minimum, reduce its reload rate to 35-40 seconds. The fact its 28 and it use to be a lot lower than that, is daft.
Personal opinion is that gap between Soyuz and Iowa is much smaller than between S&I and others so I won’t agree.
We always have to know that historical naval power doesn’t match how good their ship’s spec is. Actually big naval power tends to pick weaker but cheap ships as number superiority is one of most important factor to them, while worse naval power tends to pick stronger but expensive ships as they need ‘breakthrough’ ship that at least try to fight multiple ship of those big naval powers have.
Eh… Well, lets put it this way. I will quite happily 1v1 an Iowa in Vanguard, but I have no idea if I could even scratch the paint of a Soyuz.
Eh… Given that 2/4 Rnak 6 ships in the soviet TT arent even built by the soviets and the other 2 were never finished and then the rank 7 ship was almost entirely a pipe dream the designers kept cooking up to keep Stalin happy until his death, then Id say the soviets really shouldnt be getting such a giant leg up.
As ive said now many many times. If nothing else. There is 0 reason for not giving Soyuz a 35 or maybe even 40 second reload, especially given so many other ships at or near top tier have reloads rates set due to balance and not IRL data. Vanguard and other 15" British guns should be 25 seconds and Rodney should be 30 seconds. Most US BBs and I think Roma too are all examples of this and on the flipside, Sevatapol and Gnei should have 60-70 second reloads as they didnt have the power assisted loading that Bismark did, so using Bismark data is wild
Now this proved you are also biased, not really interested in historical or technological facts.
Then have a happy fight with battleship that can ricochet your round with just bare angling at 5 km, bye
They couldnt build it. The 420mm armour belt was completely beyond their abilities and there was evidence iirc that the designers werent even sure if she would float.
Stalin wanted a powerful navy, with a fleet of super-powerful battleships for controlling the Baltic sea and challenging the Montana-Class. But any such plans disappeared with his death. The rest of the USSR did not want such a ship.
But again… The fact she has been given every single possible advantage and the only reason she doesnt match the Bismark on RoF is because of how broken she was on the dev server. They wanted her to be powerful and so they made her powerful. Even if everything else stayed the same. Reload rate can be entirely set for balance
Can also just increase Soyuz in BR
Not sure if it’s intentional but all I’m getting from this thread is “don’t play naval.”
Bunch of everything wrong on here.
First, USSR could built it.
Second, it was not Stalin who wanted battleship. Actually he was the one who being pessimistic on it, and make discussion of Project 24 class battleship design halt on 1950. It was actually Kuznestov and admirals who wants battleship as flagship of each fleet.
Also, Soyuz’s goal was never a Montana class. It was Bismarck, which Project 23 class was to be superior against. Intelligence of Montana class actually halt further discussion of improving Project 23, and start of entirely new hull design, Project 24 started on 1943.
I’m positive on this, plus making spawn range shorter so players have more chance of seeing Soyuz unangled in close range(will also help ship with lower penetration like Vanguard, Bismarck and Richelieu), but I’m very against artificial nerf of specification of one ship. If once that has been done, things will be very problematic to fix it again in future.
this is just a massive buff for Soyuz. You know this right? Or at the very least a massive nerf for Yamato and Bismark
Please show me evidence that 28.5 second reloads were what the Soyuz’s guns could achieve IRL when mounted on a ship and at sea.
The reload rate is almost certainly based upon either land trials (which have been denied for other ships in the past) or is entirely a guess / hoped reload rate. IMO, it could be set to whatever they would like and it would be perfectly accurate.
And it has been done for every single British Rank VI except for Marl. Probably every single US rank VI. Gnei and Sevestapol have entirely fake reloads. Roma i’ve heard has the wrong reload.
etc etc etc.
Reload rates are only sometimes set to IRL performance. Otherwise, I want my 25 second reload on 15" guns and 30 second reload on 16" guns in the British TT
Nerf. Her shell room is around waterline, and her turning ability is one of worst among all added battleship. Also her crew is lowest among all new added ships, making it harder to repair multiple times when modules frequently destroyed in CQB. You have to know right.
Actually those are IRL performance(based on loading angle) and current ingame is artifically balanced one. That’s the reason why I said once artificial nerf has done, trying to fixing it by reports is very problematic.
I don’t mind buffing other ships based on IRL performance or designed rate. I’m just against nerfing Soyuz slower than desgined rate, which is actually already done by developers.
Pretty easy with her book on hand:
Without the life boats turret 3 reach the expected 20° firing angles, with them it goes down to 35°.
Thanks for the suggestion, I’ll add it to the report.
Right, so do the same with Soyuz. Give it a 35 second reload or even a 40 second. which given the soviets track record with ship maintenance (HMS Royal Soverign) would probably be fairly accurate. If not maybe a bit optimistic
The Fact its been given every single advantage in the book at the moment, is kinda laughable.
Ah I mean not that photo but photo with Roma(or other Littorio class) on voyage with boats near third turret removed.
I know that picture very well :)
Again another bias when reality is at first British and US gives ship with turret broken. And maintenance? Maintenance cannot revive ship that is already too old to be float.
Hu?
You sure you arent the one Biasd?
given the guns remained perfectly functional on Britains own R-Classes, QE-Classes and of course Vanguard for years. The soviets got a perfectly fine ship and when it was returned to the British, it had to be scrapped because the guns were no longer operational.
Nah. During repair of HMS Royal Soverign in Philadelphia it was already reported turret is not working properly, but at that time already transition to USSR was decided, and engineers doesn’t repair it properly.
It’s not the tale of British 15’’ not working properly on other ships, only tales of HMS Royal Soverign.
So she went to Philiadelphia in 1943. Went on patrol for an entire year in the indian ocean with none functional guns before she was given the soviets in 1944?
That doesnt sound right to me.
Its wiki, but still:
The Soviet Navy – intending to keep the vessel – had initially sought to avoid sending the ship back, claiming that she was not sufficiently seaworthy to make the voyage back to Britain. After an inspection by a Royal Navy officer, however, the Soviet Navy agreed to return the vessel in January 1949. Upon returning to the Rosyth naval base, Royal Navy personnel thoroughly inspected the ship and found much of her equipment to be unserviceable. It appeared to the inspectors that the main battery turrets had not been rotated while the ship was in Soviet service,[63] and were jammed on the centreline.[64] She was sold for scrap, the last member of her class to suffer this fate. The ship arrived at Thos. W. Ward’s scrapyard at Inverkeithing, Scotland, on 18 May to be broken up.[62] The elevation mechanisms from her main battery gun turrets were later reused in the 250-foot (76 m) Mark I radio telescope at Jodrell Bank, Cheshire built in 1955–1957.[65]
Don’t use wiki as a reference please, that disgust me
@Rileyy3437-live or @lxtav probably has the necessary sources, but I dont have any books on hand. So wiki will do.
But still point stands. Unless you are telling me that during war-time she went on patrol for an entire year with none-functional guns. Its suffice to say there was nothign wrong with her prior to soviet service.
Nor does this have anything to do with the Soyuz having a 35-40 second reload as a balancing measure instead of her current 28 second reload
While Royal Sovereign was moored in Philadelphia, the American light cruiser USS Boise, a badly damaged veteran of the Battle of Cape Esperance, shared a pier with her.[51] During the refit, the ship’s deck armour was increased by 2 inches (51 mm) and four of her six-inch guns were removed.[52] Royal Sovereign was sent back to the United States for a major overhaul in Philadelphia, from March to September 1943. She then returned to the Indian Ocean to resume her patrol duties. In January 1944, she left the Indian Ocean, bound for Britain.[53]
Looks pretty airtight to me. Doesn’t say anything about the guns being jammed.
