Japanese 41cms can do some damage against Iowa and Soyuz. Is it a massive uphill battle? Yes, but Amagi is the worst example here given she’s made of glass in comparison to Nagato, Mutsu and Tosa.
The average player just fires at armor belt expecting a magazine detonation. Lo and behold, guess what Soyuz is highly resistant to, even with plunging fire?
Point out where I defended it. I’ve made my stance clear several times that soyuz needs to be toned down a little bit, given its anomalously high explosive filler in its shells.
See above but 40 second reload because gaijin is allergic to historical accuracy when it suits them.
I never said it was, you clown. I simply said there was a madlad killing Soyuz players in a pt boat, which is literally proven with screens earlier in this thread.
British treaty battleship. Worst example period here. Britain has zero comparative ship in game at the moment.
Edit
Prince of Wales and Vanguard just got rating bumps they didn’t need. Love to see it.
good job dancing around his point that the win rate is utterly inflated no how you slice it, the iowa is not even comparable, The idea that people somehow just “forget how to play” is utter nonsense.
Hey guys, new official planned battle rating change thread is here. @Morvran made a great reply advocating to move the Sovetsky Soyuz up to 9.0 at least, and preferably 9.3. Please jump over to the official BR change thread and give his post a like to push as hard as possible so we can get this oppressive bote moved up:
I made my own reply to @Morvran 's reply with screenshots showing overall win rates and the Sovetsky Soyuz’s stats in detail if you would like to see more infos:
He spammed that thread so much, Gaijin is probably just gonna filter him. Plus he used statshark as evidence. If you moved Soyuz to 9.0 or 9.3, I feel like the main place where you’d notice a difference is in AB during the event grind. So few people play top tier RB that it mostly turns into a 7.7 bot shootout where the Soyuz is never threatened anyway because its not worth picking a fight with it. But since AB aiming is way more consistent and actively benefits ships designed for long range, I saw people spamming multiple on a team at once to blow through the last event. That is where I’ve tended to actually run into them and have them ruin games.
Yeah, so did I lol. Doesn’t matter if you look at individual in game stats, Thunder Skill, or StatShark, the results are the same. The Sovetsky Soyuz is an unmatched oppressive bote that is, and has been, ruining Naval battles since its addition.
There are players with nearly 20 to 1 K/D in it, Statshark is only showing the averages. The good/ excellent players using it are causing much more damage to matches than the average stats show.
Nah, he is following the rules to the letter lol. The instructions explicitly state to create a separate reply for each and every battle rating recommendation or adjustment that a player wishes to post about.
And regardless of the rules, this is the appropriate way to post suggestions in the battle rating change threads so that the likes that are left are indicative of the actual player support behind a singular battle rating adjustment versus what they have posted on their spreadsheet.
I mean yeah, knowing how hard it is to succeed id chose the “ignore it if it ignores you” strategy any day of the week playing anything but a sojuz (which i don’t have) or a iowa (which i also dont have) myself. But then again i dont play that pointless gamemode that is naval rb.
What is the way to fight it? Genuinely curious? shoot its aft barbette/magazine at the waterline as long as its not angled (Problem is only, you cant when the whole ship is already angled because that turns his main armor belt below the aft turret even more angled so resulting armor there is even thicker than the armor belt below the front turrets)? try to black out 3 compartments? Sneak up really close so you can pen its armor preferably flat on? I literally never won any 1v1 engagement vs a sojuz (where mainly myself without notable support) engage a sojuz (that also doesnt have notable support). In any scenario i can imagine (despite insanely long range where guessing the range above 20 km and hitting these salvos/ranging shots would be more important) any other ship is severely disadvantaged either through firerate, pen/tnt equiv of shells or just armor in general. Ive played a quite decent amount of RB (where everyone just knows you leave the sojuz be as long as it doesnt bother you, at that point you can as well j out if you dont get at least 2 teammates to help) and even more ec RB where you might have a chance if youre just better at targeting at longer ranges.
But generally, where tf do you shoot that thing when its well angled? You don’t thats the thing, you either j out (and safe yourself some apparently not so valuable minutes of your life since youre not playing the sojuz in naval top tier) or get to cover/distance as quickly as possible. Engaging gameplay rly.
So, to back your arguments and say that you have good aim, you post the stats of a game mode where the game aims for you??? What are you on about? In arcade the shells will land correctly where you aim no matter what you do, which is why people wiggle around like a world of warships player, and it’s what ruined the game mode, i literally only alt tab to fire and then alt tab to another game again and get top scores almost every game, since the game aims and repairs automatically.
Also, saying that the amagi/colorado/nelson fighting soyuz is fair just because it’s possible to damage it is a shit take by a mile. Soyuz can pen any of those ships everywhere from over 5 km farther than those ships can reliably hit back, and it’s not fair for the BR because the same doesn’t happen with the other 8.7 ships.
Now, about you defending soyuz, wtf are you on about arguing with me if not defending? Trying to justify the absurd winrate as anything but a ridiculous paper ship, the super skewed matchups against anything below it’s own BR and blaming the playerbase for these issues while neglecting how shady gaijin has been about all this.
This is a lie if you so much have tried any form of evasion or even simple throttle down.
You would know this if you actually played against someone throttle evading or turning: gunners will miss completely almost all the time without the player compensating unless you’re super close range.
I have also fought in realistic EC at range while evading at 20+km. It isn’t difficult to compensate for own ship behavior if you understand closing distance.
Or did you forget this is an arcade thread?
And your inability to read is baffling. I said no such thing.
This is what I said and you willfully ignored it. Maybe stop trying to feed your own narrative.
The same can be said for Colorado with the added problem of a god awful reload rate.
Nelson is in a similar situation as Colorado except 35 seconds and even worse survivability.
It was laid down, the guns were built. The secondaries as well were used on other ships. I’m tired of this goofy narrative haters have of it thinking it only existed in schematics when it historically hasn’t. I even posted pictures earlier in the thread.
An Iowa is just as ridiculous in a down tier as a Soyuz.
Yamato, on the other hand, is a bugged dumpster fire of a polygonal representation. Not to mention it dies when so much as looked at. Pops Soyuz real good at 15km+ though.
Difference of opinion on why it’s so strong =/= defending it. I have even offered solutions to tone it down - once again - in this thread.
Uhhhh i hoped you have found a way - any way- to fight it on more equal ground in anything but the sojuz or iowa itself? Or could explain what to target to do any meaningful damage to it? Since ive set both its frontal barbettes on fire multiple times just for the fire to simply vanish after 2 or 3 seconds (not extinguished, simply just disappear simultaneusly in a ridicoulous short timespan after catching fire, judging from the eternally bugged impact window though), in general taking ages to reach the magazines as well as just not sinking the ship even if they explode i chose just to not bother with that bs anymore, not play RB in general (multiple other reasons for that as well) or just leave the queue if anyone queues for russia (Not playing RB is my favorite strat).
Literally no one in any thread in this forum or of the huge group of people i play ec with and certainly no one of the sojuz defenders that claim “people just don’t know how to fight it” ever came around the corner with something like: I found a weakpoint/strategy where you can actually hope to take it out in a (more or less equal in numbers of involved players or chances of success) strategy or areas to target. Even with the Yamato in a scenario as favorable for you in the yammi as possible at very long range it is still an absolute diceroll no matter how good your aim is because how giant your weakspots/magazines are and how unreliable your armor is even vs poor aim and how easy the sections of the yamato sometimes black out (especially compared to how much damage the sojuz and to a lesser extent the iowa takes with occasions where sometimes 3 8.7 ships have to hammer a well angled sojuz for 10 minutes or more for it to finally sink). And now after their “fix” the yamato apparently loses over 80% of crew of a pen midships into its engine rooms possibly combined with an explosion of the midships secondary ammo? Yeah cool ehhhmm…ill definitely try that myself to see at what an abysmal state naval rb in top tier really is atm, my lifetime is worth nothing to me
Doesnt help though if you have to fight these in ec, where 2 of them controlled by decent players can just shut the whole match down for 40+ players. If thats the officially recommended method from gaijin (just dont play that BR range) (id love to tag some helpless moderator here) then, sure, no problem thats quite easy to follow. Player numbers also suggest that theres no notably increasing number of players that feel the need to put up with that bs.
It’s been a hot minute since I fought it and I apologize for the brutish response earlier.
Soyuz’s issue is Iowa’s magnified; it has a three tier deck armor layout in warthunder which makes it resistant - but not immune - to plunging fire at around 13 to 15km with japanese No 5 APCBC can get through these decks and set fires fairly deep in the elevators. But again; it’s one hell of an uphill battle despite similar firerate as Soyuz.
Turret 3, while still fairly well defended, isn’t protected nearly as consistently as turrets 1 and 2.
The secondary issue is there’s not enough equivalent era ships to fight it barring Iowa, SoDak, Yamato and Musashi. Two of those are practically signing their death warrant in a slugging match.
(Added in edit) The fact Japan’s the only nation with any sort (read: highly inconsistent) counter if up-tiered is just as much an issue.
Roma and Italia could have been somewhat decent options but their reload is a baffling 45 seconds plus despite all the proof saying 30.6 seconds was possible.
Nobody knowing how to fight it and it needing to be toned down isn’t mutually exclusive.
People don’t know how to fight british 5.3 cruisers and constantly aim empty space to try and explode ammunition they can’t hit. A similar situation is happening here except they’re aiming an obnoxiously well armored battleship’s bow and belt armor.
The difference with the above example is British cruisers aren’t a 60k ton behemoth that many ships struggle to even penetrate. Soyuz is a three fold problem and ‘not knowing how to fight Soyuz’ is simply one of them.
The only time I defended Soyuz - period - was my initial stance when Soyuz was first released was ‘it was strong’ as I refused to kneejerk until I had more experience against it and other people’s opinions. My initial posts in this thread reflect it.
My stance also changed (although not any time recently) with experience and hearing others: Does it need to be toned down (read: nerfed)? Yes.
Don’t worry i didnt take your answer as being brutish (at least not towards me). Especially since i really was genuinely asking out of interest and in no way misunderstood your arguments as defending the state of the sojuz’ implementation in game as well as its subpar counters (maybe apart from the iowa)
Yeah this is kinda what i said with the aft turret, but if we consider the whole ship to be angled somewhat well then the aft section is even more angled than the bow section so that brings both areas to comparable armor levels. Considering blacking out sections sometimes seemingly takes ages (even with the yamatos 46 cm guns), Engine room being about as well armored as the magazines through the main armor belt that basically leaves no other options than shoot at around waterline or barbettes and pray for something to happen there quicker than something happens to you. which is unlikely if he shoots you at all. My point being, how should the average person or anyone know how to fight it when there is no actual way if the sojuz simply angles and all you can do is just evade, get into cover or not play naval at top tier? Sure you can also just evade it if you don’t launch wt in the first place but i mean…i know you don’t fight it especially not in rb, is that the right way? I think, yes
Then youve got the issue of somehow simply disappearing barbette and ammo elevator fires that just vanish way quicker than ive ever extinguished any fire on any ship myself (as i said might be a bug/malfunction of the impact indicator window top right), ammo elevator fire seemingly taking ages to reach its magazines (which are somewhere and nowhere since in game model in module view doesnt represent the actual damage and/or cdk model at all and are just c&p from the khronshtadt afaik) WHILE still running ammo through those on fire barbettes and ammo elevators through invisible bulkheads and fire proof doors or whatever since no ammo storage inside the barbettes, which is weird in itself. (If i had to theoretically operate such a ship i would do anything but run ammo and propellant bags through an on fire ammo elevator, but thats just me, maybe in the russian navy fires burn at a cozy 30° and are no problem whatsoever).
BUT EVEN if all of this fails and its magazines explode, The insane tnt equivalent of the same number of primary ammo shells like on the iowa and the yamato per each magazine plus the propellant bags which speed its 1100 kg shells up to an insane 830 m/s (Iowa: 1225 kg, 760 m/s and Yamato 1460 kg and 780 m/s) simply never seem to explode or sink the ship as a whole. Id really love to understand how that works. More TNT more boom, id at least trust the almighty snail to have that somehow modelled somewhat accurately. But maybe magical sovjet he filler just bigger boom if boom inside enemy ship or what? Yet the yamato seems to explode when one of its sailors accidentaly drops a cigarette on the deck, or just loses 80% of its crew by a hit into the engine room (similar to the amagi which according to gaijin seems to have 600 sailors inside its engine room in a combat scenario, which can be set on fire and explode if you hit its exhaust funnels with sap or he :-D) and 2200 rounds of 12.7 mm aa ammo going poof midships. (while not being able to empty its main or secondary magazines afaik). I mean its just been 7 months, how long can it take them to realize something is way off? TF is that supposed to be?
Of course if an enemy takes evasive action the shells won’t hit, but i never said that, i said that, in arcade, the shells will land where you aim, at the spot on the ocean that you (or more precisely the game) was targetting.
Now, about the paper ship, laying thing steel plates on a dry dock is a world’s difference from actually finishing a battleship worthy of the name. When you say it you forget that the soviets didn’t have the armor, never tested the turrets, never put the power plant through any sort of trials, even though they had the necessary parts for years before discarding them, the fact that they couldn’t make rivetting of good enough quality to hold the thing together, the fact that they studied building battleships for nearly 10 years after the end of the war and didn’t get anywhere, the fact that they couldn’t build a heavy cruiser that performed well, or that when armor plates became obsolete, they tried with the kirovs and still came up with an absolute mess. Honestly, giving the soviet/russian navy’s recordbelieving they could do anything close to the size of the soyuz is like believing the kid who’s got low grades from kindergarten to highschool is gonna suddenly get into harvard. Now if you honestly believe that, you can’t accuse anyone of having any sort of bias.
I don’t really get why you seem so angry? And im quite sure the dissing is also rather unnecessary unless you want to stir trouble where there is none?
No one here said that he/she truly believes that (i think)? Unfortunately that doesnt matter (what we believe/think we know/what our stance toward that whole historical aspect is or might be) since its the snails decision what and how to put into the game and they put it into the game in the state it’s in now and with the peers that we’re all very happy about (/s in case that wasnt obvious)? Theres nothing we can do about it now being in the game despite voicing our discontent about the state of gameplay in that BR area and pointing towards inaccuracies (bit hard with a ship that was 20% finished 80, almost 90 years ago and most probably rather secret even back then) and towards stuff that just doesnt work for the game to even be slightly fair or balanced (not that i think the snail cares about such trivialities a lot :-D)
ERGO we are most likely just wasting precious lifetime. At least its fun bashing a metal husk that had its best days sitting in a drydock that is now clowning on (almost) every other battleship that ever sailed the seas in a “semirealistic” pcgame
