If you have ‘problem’ with it, then blame Japanese navy.
Even Iowa’s high explosive that weighs 600 kg less have more filler than Yamato’s.
And its very historical.
You want to compare 635 kg no base fuze, no ballistic cap shell to 1108 kg base fuze, ballistic cap shell?
British 15’’ CPC was good penetraton in game once. Gaijin just nerf as others cry about it.
There is a point where historical accuracy has to go out the window for fun and/or game balance. Which has been the entire crux of my argument since the beginning.
Both have 88kg of explosive filler. The point is one doesn’t have the penetration to instantly kill a same tier battleship from 20km away.
Let’s not forget the power creep, among other things.
Imo, that is the point of battle rating though.
If vehicles are balanced via other traits, then BR becomes irrelevant.
You could have HMS Invincible buffed to be the same performance as Yamato, and that would just be wierd
The issue though, is the paper ships, like Soyuz, they should be balanced where they are so clearly overperforming
Clearly, it doesn’t work when you got 5.3 cruisers that are straight up in a better position than many 5.7s or even 6.0s.
Or specific 8.0s (Tosa) that make anything up to 8.3 borderline irrelevant.
I have no issue with incomplete ships in the game - More ships is always good. I have an issue when something straight up overpowers an entire bracket into being unfun.
yeah, your not wrong, naval balance has failed too date, but I dont think the solution is to fake model stuff.
Besides, we know how that would end. Soviet stuff would inexplicably become exceedingly OP
Maybe it’s not Soyz/Iowa overpowered, but others underpowered against each other and waste to much time on killing even weaker targets due to problems in current damage system, maps and gameplay overall?
Sure
Holy moly we have a true and honest intellectual powerhouse here, you’re right the sussy soysus isn’t op, everything else is just underpowered! how we missed this key insight I’m not sure but thank you for pointing it out for the rest of us!
Show us where Soyz touched you on this doll.
The Soyuz has 3x Triple 16" guns, 6x Twin 6" guns and a host of AA weapons. If you cannot take out what looks to be a destroyer, then that is a major skill issue and one of the worst excuses I’ve ever heard.
Even in battleships with weak close in protection and dreadful maneuverability, it would still be a major skill issue, as why the hell are you getting into that position in the first place. Clearly you simply overextended
If you are really that worried about encountering a destroyer in a Soyuz, stay at range, simple not a lot it can really do with its guns and dont sail constantly in a straight line, if a torp hits you, its random chance
Were did you get all of that from about destroyer vs Soyz?
My first intrepretation of what you wrote, sounded like you were saying the Soyuz couldnt touch the destroyer shown, but its been a long day and I now see what you were trying to say.
Yep, have a rest.
btw. Shimakaze or something similar with good torps probably one of the best options vs Soyz in AB.
Again, Yamato - with 46cms - has to pixel hunt both Soyuz, and to a lesser extent, Iowa and SoDak.
They just need to aim in the general direction of the Yamatos.
Not remotely enough if I have to point stern forward at an angle and still have a chance of being instantly killed with an ammunition explosion… With only 15 rounds left in the frontal magazine.
Meanwhile, Soyuz can be borderline comatose in terms of brain activity and still be at the top of the leaderboard.
So Yamato loosing 85% of the crew from single hit, in the middle of the hull, due to issues in its model - it’s Soyz problem not Yamato? What next, Littorio class long reloads is also Soyz problem? Absents of “reduced-charges” for better angles, crew-boxes eating shrapnel and explosions, barely noticeable difference in he-fragmentation penetration for different shells(88 kg - 77 mm, 10 kg - 60 mm), shell shrapnel or explosions having no pen on around plates if shell exploded on some surface(barbet, armor deck, bulkhead etc.) except that one on which it exploded(which leads to no any nearest modules getting damage with those hits) for sure its all “Soyz” problems, not game itself overall.
I have never had this issue in either Yamato or Musashi. I have seen this issue on Mutsu and Nagato, however. Hell, I’ve even abused it by purposely aiming boilers.
Curious mental gymnastics. They’re not the topic of discussion. There’s already been plenty of solutions to increasing the firerate to 31 second reload aced. And has been denied repeatedly.
Because a 40.6cm shell should have both similar penetration and nearly double the explosive payload of same era contemporaries, right? With not only a faster reload but similar (or better) accuracy characteristics, right?
While also having an armor scheme that (it would not have had in real life due to a variety of reasons listed) almost completely invalidates even the largest guns constructed - and placed - on a battleship that saw combat.
While also out speeding (historical, which I’m fine with) but also being fully capable of outmaneuvering (something it couldn’t do period due to rudder layout had she been finished) the battleship that historically had a 640m turning circle?
I have zero issue with the Pr23 existing in warthunder. I have an issue with a battleship that makes literally everything else arguably pointless.
Edit
And no, it’s not because it’s Russian. If Iowa or even Yamatos were in the same position that Soyuz is currently in, I’d be complaining too.
Because 80 kg of explosions should explode way harder than 8 kg of it but in game it not.
Iowa 18.55 kg, Soyz - 25.7 kg, Vanguard - 22 kg, Rodney - 20kg, Richelieu - 21.92 kg where did u get double i dunno?
Soyz reload in game is slower than in its actual project(which is 2.5-2.6 RPM).
Iowa have better manuver, Richelieu too, as all other ships with better speed, acceleration and lighter mass have it, when speed is the key to maneuverability. So that also not a Soyz problem but game itself.
Ground game mechanics and designs stretched on naval gameplay is problem here, not the one ship characteristics. If shells and guns had proper performance, if damage models and damage design had no flaws and issues, if maps had good design, if the was more than 3 respawns and good synergy between ships classes, if in naval plane gameplay wasn’t nerfed to the ground and plane BRs for naval combat were properly tweaked down(or even planes flight and attack in groups) - there was no tread like this, where people demand nerf to a ship just cause it hurts them.
If you never have it, doesn’t mean that there is no issue.
That looks like the aa ammo just above the main belt midships exploded (top picture should be the small area with white frame) that made the yamato instantly disappear when she was introduced. That explosion (or the shells themselves) probably took out all the boiler rooms as well. Somehow gaijin seems to think the IJN would stick 30-60% of all people on the ship into the engine rooms during battle. With a big explosion midships i would expect some quite heavy crew loss, but 85% is quite excessive (even more so when the model viewer labels this aa ammo as 2200 rounds lol). But not entirely sure, what do the russian captions say translated?
EDIT: Btw, February statshark stats are out. Sojuz now sits at 10.67 K/D and 3.6 K/S. What a surprise. But im sure gaijin is working hard on bugfixing yamato and other ships models /s. But that might also be due to less people want to play top tier naval rb so theres more and more bots per game (most likely resulting in every ship’s k/d going up), considering how broken, pointless and unbalanced it is at 8.7 not exactly a big surprise.
Soyuz 40.6cm APCBC: 39.58kg equivalent.
25.7kg explosive mass. 1108kg shell. 830 m/s. 852 to 572mm of penetration
Soyuz 40.6cm SAP: 88kg explosive mass. 1108kg shell. 830 m/s. 629 to 422mm of penetration. 28 second reload.
Iowa: 40.6cm Mk13 HE: 68.28kg equivalent.
69.67kg explosive mass. 820 m/s. 106 to 59mm
Iowa 40.6cm APCBC: 18.18kg equivalent, 18.55 explosive mass. 1225kg. 762m/s, 857 to 583mm of penetration. 29 second reload.
Yamato class 46cm HE: 64.77kg equivalent, 61.69kg explosive mass. 805 m/s. 123 to 57mm.
Yamato class 46cm APCBC: 25.05kg equivalent. 23.86kg explosive mass. 1458.3kg. 780 m/s. 870 to 603mm of penetration. 31.7 second reload.
Rodney 40.6cm APCBC: 20.9 kg explosive mass. 929kg projectile. 788 m/s 696 to 423mm, 35.3 second reload. (The exception in the list as this isn’t an end tier battleship but a 7.7. there’s going to be some serious differences due to lower battle rating.)
Rodney 40.6cm HE: 75.25kg explosive mass. 792 m/s. 101 to 61mm of penetration.
Vanguard 38cm SAP: 61.67kg explosive mass. 225 to 122mm of penetration. 752 m/s. 30 second reload.
Vanguard 38cm Mark 22b APCBC: 20.68kg equivalent. 22kg explosive mass. 805 m/s. 727 to 454mm of penetration. 879kg projectile.
Bismarck 38cm AP: 20.3kg explosive mass. 820 m/s. 701 to 435mm of penetration. 800kg projectile. 24 second reload.
Bismarck 38cm SAP: 35.04 kg explosive mass. 524 to 325 mm of penetration.
I think you get the point.
Not only does Soyuz have more explosive payload in its SAP than every HE listed but this also comes with the benefit of it sacrificing literally nothing for best in class gun performance. That’s not including its astronomically good AP whereas other guns or even the platform itself lose out on something.
Armor? Absolutely best in class.
Speed? Not an issue for her size.
Maneuverability? Great.
The simplest solution to hit Soyuz is to nerf its armor plates by about 15 to 20% and then adjust from there.
Doing this would literally adjust it to a playstyle similar to its battlecruiser cousins: great guns, but fragile.
Basically, remove the Cemented multiplier buff. Russians simply couldn’t make cemented plates thicker than 230mm… make it RHA instead.
That’s why they made them so thick on the first place; so the thickness would make up for the weaker material.
Instead, in WT, it gets BOTH the strongest material AND thickest thickness they designed to make up for the lack of such material.
Also as a minor side note for Vanguard and Rodney, their reload times are 5 seconds longer than primary sources suggests, the current rate of fire is because the devs quote “considered it unnecessary to further increase the rate of fire” and rejected the report to increase the reload time by 5 seconds. Which suggests that reload rates can be used as a balancing mechanic. Soyuz therefore could also be given a longer reload to balance it against everyone else, but they wont
