Preach
1 Like
Well she is already nerfed for balance from her designed rate, 23 seconds(Of course it is under assumption of at loading angle)
Also with Iowa which in real life can load in 25 seconds at loading angle
This is well known by the developers(Bug report about Iowa buff to 25 seconds was rejected as developers saids current 30 seconds is intentional, and also developers answered current Soyuz is acutally not full final design, but mixture of 1939 and 1936 design), and will be hard to be further nerfed, so you have to find another way.
2 Likes
Then buff everything else then. Give Iowa and Vanguard their 25 second reloads. Im Sure Roma can do better than 45 second reloads. etc etc
If Soyuz cannot be touched, (and lets face it, there isnt really anything stronger that can be added without paper ships that were never laid down). Buff what we’ve already got then.
Or just increase Soyuzs BR. 9.0 or 9.3 then.
Bring in the tallboys and the American guided one on the B-29
As I said, I’m positive for buffing other battleships. As a all nation grinder and cqb lover, fast reload is always welcomed.
For Russia or who?
I doubt the feasibility of nerfing Soyuz’s firepower, not only because the rate of fire had been already nerfed from dev server and further artificial nerf in this regard will set a dangerous precedent for artificial nerfs on other ships in the future, but also because I am very suspicious on whether nerfing the firepower would properly balance it. To be fair Soyuz’s firepower isn’t particularly superior - not as powerful as Yamato’s and rate of fire is just fractionally faster than Iowa with comparable penetration. The main reason for its overwhelming performance is survivability. Let me remind you again about the years of Scharnhorst dominance, it was never primarily because of Scharnhorst has splendid firepower but single-handedly because of its ridiculous survivability.
7 Likes
For everyone else. Like the L3 class for Britain
Spoiler
Courtesy of Rileyy
Then we need a new damage mechanic like we got for Scharn to counter Soyuz.
Even that will not help much as B-29’s flight performance is not suitable at 8.X. Let’s give early jet bombers like B-45 or B-66 instead
The question still remains how Gaijin decide peak reload speeds. It’s certainly not peak reload speed. Since it was denied for Iowa and Rodney. Is it average? Is it second highest? What do they use?
Anything guided?
I think Japan/France/Italy and Great Britain now needs paperplan ship more than USSR.
But I don’t know which French ship design will ‘at least’ stands chance against Soyuz and Iowa as Alsace is still 15’’ gun.
Sad they didn’t keep up with 45 cm gun they actually manufacture in 1920s
Not but B-45 is with 10,000 lb or 22,000 lb bomb, and B-66 is an agile bomber with 4 3,000lb bomb.
I’d rather have something standoff for ships
Found it, it’s abit burned because of the cameras at that time but you can see all turrets facing front and no lifeboats near turret 3:
The dark ages when you surrounded Sharn with 4 or more ships and she’ll just shrug off tons of shells without sinking.
I think she gained double her original weight during those engagements
4 Likes
Artificial nerfs are already a thing, so honestly I don’t see why it should be prohibited on Soyuz.
You’re kinda underselling it by not mentioning two things:
-
Soyuz has a muzzle velocity advantage at 830m/s while Yamato is 780m/s and Iowa 762 m/s. This makes landing shots easier for Soyuz.
-
Soyuz has an insane bursting charge. For marginally worse pen than Yamato, it gets a 39.5kg bursting charge on a 406mm shell, while Yamato’s 460mm have “only” 25kg. This means that any that lands and penetrate (which it pretty much always will at 800+mm of pen) will kill lot of crew, break a lot of shit, create fires and/or cause flooding.
Add these to the fact that it has the best RoF, one of the best dispersion in the game and penetration roughly similar to the other two and the problem with her firepower becomes far more apparent.
While you’re right that Soyuz’s (and Scharnhorst) survivability is the thing that breaks them the most, in Soyuz’s case it’s a combination of both. Kronshtadt has great firepower but it’s a glass canon so it’s manageable, but Soyuz will never be a glass canon, so her firepower needs to be part of the equation when it comes to balancing.
As far as nerfing its survivability (and one that wouldn’t be artificial either), I’ll reiterate that giving it a lower KE protection multiplier to represent the usage of two plates of face hardened armor instead of a single plate of RCA would be a good start.
So it would go from top tier to… top tier.
Seriously, this wouldn’t change a thing. It would still face Iowa, Yamato, Bismarck, Roma, Richelieu, Vanguard, etc… and dominate them. The only ones this change would help is 7.7 ships.
5 Likes
Than that would be have to head for already nerfed ship to historical buff, not pulling down another
Fast muzzle velocity has both pros and cons. It lands better on far range, but also having harder time hitting citadel around or under waterline at close distance compared to slower ones.
SAP is on another level, but for AP, bursting charge is not the only thing that matters damage.
For Soyuz they can increase dispersion since those guns were never put on a tripple turret so we don’t know real life performance. I really don’t why they gave her the best dispersion together with Iowa and Yamato… Not like Soyuz was lacking in other areas.
That’s such an obvious thing to do… like naval devs don’t play naval themselves.
Change filler to TNT since it was used during test as someone mentioned here. Or better nerfing penetration to Navywep stats around “13600m 406mm at 30°” that’s Richelieu level of pen.
Expected reload rate “1.75 to 2.6 rounds per minute”
So give her 1.75 reload.
Nerfing firepower would balance her
11 Likes
We should instead give it only single turrets (that would genuinely look hilarious)
1 Like