Except it’s not and they could make armor to that thickness, it’s just labeled incorrectly as cemented, this was also addressed directly by a tech mod.
God, noooooooooooooo pls not more of the stupid sub 10 km engagement range maps where both teams spawn in plain view of every other enemy ship. You can’t turn or maneuver at all because you either block or run into allies, also you will unangle towards all the enemies, you have 0 time to avoid enemy shots, ships that dont have sojuz or other top tier lvl armor like the paper amagi and mutsu get penned by every enemy ai ship randomly shooting at them, sometimes getting set on fire by every single hit. The dumbest thing thats ever put into (top tier) naval rb. Even the giant circle maps are better because even though you have no island cover you can at least maneuver to angle or kite away if you’re getting hard focussed by multiple enemies. (you can’t make it to the circle then but you can at least hope or ask allies to help you out and target the guys shooting at you)
Less distance goes both ways. And all of that because balancing the soyuz is not an option? wtf it’s not the only ship in the game. What are you planning to do vs a sojuz in a roma sub 10 km? It’s basically your BR, its crazy op so players will flock to it, it spawns in your face. It has way better armor, it has twice your reload speed, its ap shells have 4 (!!!) times the he equivalent and its sap has almost 9 times. The not-so-good armor (sry pizza enjoyers) your roma has will be even worse, even to all the 7.7 ships that will pop up not even 10 km away from you. Will you kite away and maneuver to make him miss shots, get annoyed and target someone else or waste his time so your allies can focus him? Good luck with that, you have no space to turn away, let alone maneuver at all and the short shell flight time in short distances will make sure he probably won’t miss a lot of his shots.
I prefer the multiple spawn option in that case that someone brought up. Ships that do better at longer ranges can spawn in the back and support, improving their armor and ships or players that do better at or prefer brawling can do that also, without being put in that stupid cluster having to fight in highly disadvantaged positions with no way of getting out. Or in general, every player can then spawn and play in the way or playstyle that he/she prefers.
Since the match result is basically random anyhow and most matches theres not much of a point in caring about the outcome (random funi guy in pt boat can easily cap 2 to 3 caps and drain tickets to 0 before enemy bbs even have a chance to make it even close to the caps, ai wandering onto caps randomly), ships that arent meant for brawling (basically everything except the german turtleback ships) might as well sit in the back, refrain from suiciding into 5 enemies full broadside in a desparate attempt to get onto a cap and watch the tickets drain down for one side from 15 km away. Really awesome and active way of playing naval rb i know, but it is what it is i guess. it has to be 3 caps in the middle of the map. Does that make sense for naval gameplay? Not really, or in most cases not, but anyways, 3 caps it is (btw 3 cap gamemode for air when?)
1 Like
Very doubtful. They were running into severe problems even before the war. In 1939, they only recieved about 10% of the total armored plate they were supposed to for that year, of which half was rejected for not being up to standard. They never sucessfully built a single turbine for the engines domestically, the had to buy three from the Swiss. Same with the propeller shafts, which were bought from Germany and the Netherlands. Hell, the prototype of the boilers was only completed early 1941. There were similar problems with the turrets.
Hell, just look at Sovetskaya Belorussiya, who was ordered scrapped pre-war in 1940 when it was discovered that 70,000 rivets used in her hull plating were substandard.
In short, the Soviet industrial capacity was just nowhere near the level required to build ships of this size.
Maybe, if given exceptionally generous time, money, international support and no short amount of luck that no serious teething issues were found during construction/shakedown, they might have had something somewhat resembling these ships in the early 50s, had there been no war.
Except for bow, no
because Roma has pre 1942 reload speed for now.
The smartest choice mad by was short distance as we can see how WOWs were ruined. Circle map, the most idiot desin in war thunder naval.
does it matter what years reference they took for the roma’s reload? they knew its specs before introducing it and they knew the sojuz’s. Yet thats what they went with. Still Roma is 8.3 and soyuz 8.7. Would you bet on them buffing the roma before doing anything about the sojuz situation? An italian ship? I don’t think so. And all of that still doesnt change the massive difference in shell capabilities. Even if they had the same reload, cuz, yk the sojuz guns were only tested on a fixed mount and never at sea and the guns were even struggling then, simply the difference in he equivalent gives the sojuz 4 times the damage (to crew and hull) potential and yk, because its sap also has quite notable pen even more with the sap.
And the circle maps, yeah thats why i said “Even”. Its not the most exciting map setup, but even thats better then 8 km engaggement range african gulf (pls dont maneuver or you will show your side to the whole enemy team spawning 8 km away from you) or franz josef land (bettter sail straight onto c together with your whole team and pray the bots dont have different ideas, otherwise everyone will shoot into your side from 8 km out)
Yes because that was the year when Littorio classes’ faulty rammer has been modified.
Except for disperson at 14~21 km, no. It end test well, and fired addtional rounds during Siege of Leningrad. Though fired little less than designed 300 rounds, it was because during the test engineers shot some rounds with faster velocity than they originally designed.
It is problem of those map’s design, not problem of combat range. Norway encounter or Mediterranean Ports having better experience although their combat distance are similar to African gulf or Franz Josef.
1 Like
I see, well why didn’t they go with a competitive and playable reload for the ROMA then from the beginning? on a ship thats basically already worse (especially in comparison to sojuz) in all or most other aspects? Not sure how to compare it to the other top tier bbs, its just the atrocious reload rate that sticks out a lot. And just assume the optimum reload for guns that were never used on a ship that already excells in most other aspects? Doesnt make sense.
Like, obviously the sojuz didn’t ever have to take any drawbacks, see its top speed as planned and as modelled was easily achieved irl, there werent any problems with maneuverability, or with the powerplants during construction, there werent any problems with all that armor during construction or sea trials, the guns worked just as planned. I bet every other ship that irl existed and went through trials and irl circumstances sailing at sea or problems during construction (which i guarantee you each of them had) had to deal with drawbacks at one point and there had to be cutbacks and compromises had to be made. Not for the sojuz. No construction=no problems during construction. No maiden voyage and no sea trials=no problems at trials. No 400 mm cemented armor put on the sip= no problems with putting 400 mm cemented armor on the ship theoretically, comrade. Never mounting or shooting the guns on the actual ship=no problems with the gun, installing the gun on the ship or shooting it in different cenarios. Everything just working as planned with maximum efficience possibly achievable, trust
1 Like
Because… as developers first choose, it took a while even when report is accepted, as in case of Arizona(which was originally 50 seconds at ace) and Rodney(originally 40 seconds at ace).
It’s not the opitmum reload of Soviet 16’’ guns. Designed was 23 seconds at loading angle(which is not 100% unrealistic goal considering Iowa’s 16’’ guns have 25 seconds reload at loading angle, and Soviet 16’’ gun uses lighter shell). Iowa and Soyuz’s reload rate is rated as around 30 seconds for balance with other top BBs.
So developers makes its turning ability worse than real life’s final design by giving it only one rudder instead of three.
1 Like
Yes, “design”. The small thing that separates a design from its existence is the construction and all the problems that go with it.
Soyuz IRL is this :
or this :
That’s it, that’s the reality we live in, as saddening as it can be. They should’ve given this ship weaker armor and put it after Kron, the 2 would fit quite well together, Meh armor, good firepower.
3 Likes
I see your points, so what would be a good way of balancing it? If not simply going with the way of just balancing it purely by adjusting BRs because then you would maybe have Sojuz at 9.0 or 9.3 basically fighting itself and the same 2 or 3 ships, maybe iowa at 8.7 and maybe yamato at 8.7 with everyone else at 8.3 or lower. That wouldnt work and wouldnt make sense.
But as it is now its really sad seeing great ships like the Roma, Bismarck and Richelieu sitting at just 0.3 lower and the yamato also at 8.7 (while everyone knows which giant weakspots that ship has, at least on release) So adjusting through BR wont really work. What can be done then? Why should anyone grind and look forward to play the Roma and the other new and cool top tier ships knowing theres one other ship basically at the same BR just vastly outclassing it in most metrics? I know i dont feel any need or point in even starting to grind italy or france. And as soon as I finally have the yamato (soonTM) I’m already quite sure it wont be a lot of fun and extremely painful especially on the 10 km maps. Thats not the way it should be for all new top tier ships (but one or maybe 2)
1 Like
You know this is an meaningless argument on game with F-16AJ and Hori, which even didn’t have proper blueprint?
Put both Soyuz and Iowa in 9.0 is the first step among with smaller map. Ship of lower penetration at 8.3 needs smaller map to at least tries to pen those monsters.
Yamato on even smaller map? Yeah i guess ill just stick with not even trying to reach its ap shells and just get it for custom battles, stock4 ever.
That’s also a thing, but quite off topic.
If Gaijin wants to add a prototype, because let’s face it, USSRs navy during WW2 was basically non existent, they can do so, but since they have some room for interpretation, they should use it to add it in a balanced way, without overshadowing real ships if possible.
The armor is a prime example.
3 Likes
Well, Yamato and Soyuz only cries, others smile, so sad for Yamato but has to.
Not off topic as so many players only attach strict standard to soviet vehicles while not on other nation’s unfinished things.
Ok i can attach the same standard if you want to
Yak 141, F16AJ, Hori and M4K being gone does not bother me. Now what ?
Give me the ability to beach myself without auto j out facing full broadside in the yamato so i can’t sink and they cant pen that stupid angled bulkhead, the way the emperor intended. ;-)
This^^ is actually what annoys me…the “real” vehicles should always be the ones with the advantage…any prototype should have a BR “increase” to make it less relevant…IMHO.
I actually don’t play top tier ships…but this happens also in tanks at different BRs and with different nations…out of my head i recall Waffentrager, Tortoise, KV220, T29…AFAIK none was used in combat and all become dominant (in their BRs) at some phase in time…
TBH…it is not the rule…in many BRs the dominant vehicles are “real” ones…even if sometimes on too many nations…(T34, Panther, Tigers, Jumbo, Centurion…)
BUT…it would annoy me to “invest” (time, money or both) on a real thing like Yamato or Iwoa…and have it outperformed by something unreal…for fiction i can play star wars games…
(Soyuz to me was the spacecraft…never heard about a battleship…and on WW2 theme i read books, watched movies and played games for over 30 years…)
7 Likes
Exactly…
I was fully onboard with project ships, including Soyuz, counting on grounded and realistic implementations.
Instead, Soyuz was implemented in an impossibly optimistic way it could not possibly have been constructed as; a way in which it could only ever exist on paper.
And yet, since no nuance was taken for a more grounded approach… we effectively got a paper ship instead of a realistic project. A paper ship that, due to its nature, is indeed overshadowing every single other ship in the game, including naval legends that actually sailed and fought.
8 Likes
Doesn’t have to be an advantage for the irl existing ships for me, but some balance between ships at the same BR would be…nice??? why else would they be at the same BR then?