Finding possible solutions is what some people on this thread are discussing. Any ideas?
Or is it perfect as it is because dunking on weaker in every regard vehicles at the same br is basically what this game is, so, their fault for playing the wrong nation/vehicle?
I had to go trough 6.0 on light crusers against 6.0 battleships if it’s needs to be fair i wan’t it in every br. not only in top
I see no problem with that. A balanced game at every BR in any case benefits more people than just the ones flocking to the couple of strong/op vehicles. And because it will be more balanced probably more people will try playing the mode and will probably play a wider variety of vehicles/nations. Making the gamemode more varied and more fun. Spending more money because more vehicles will be viable. Which then should also please the snail.
Just because a lot of people had to (or decided to) go through that (myself included) doesnt mean thats how it has to be. Well, at least you learn more from facing difficulties than the people that just whip out 70€ for a 7.7 gneisenau and have no idea what to do
Now imagine trying to grind to the top 8.7 and 8.3 battleships having reached 7.7 and having to face that thing thats already unbalanced at its own br in a stock 7.7 battleship with not the best crew. Pointless.
Obviously that counts for 6.7 cruisers vs bbs and countless of other examples as well, but this thread is about sojuz (and its balance compared to the other top dogs)
The extreme thickness of the belt, 420mm, was meant to compensate for the lower quality of the steel, since they did not have the capacity of making cemented plates beyond 230mm.
The 420mm thickness was meant to provide similar degrees of protection of a thinner cemented plate (on the 350mm range) via raw thickness to make up for the weaker material.
The problem in War Thunder is that Soyuz got BOTH the cemented steel multipliers, and the 420mm thickness made to offset the lack of said cemented steel.
Therefore, a realistic and fair solution would be to make the steel be regular rolled armor instead of cemented.
The cemented multiplier is making the 420mm thick plate have an effectiveness of 462mm. This is comically OP and unrealistic. The 420mm thickness was meant to equal 400mm.
This alone would already be a step into the right direction.
An alternate plan was to combine two thinner cemented plates, which would have compromised and reduced the effectiveness of the module. This could also be simulated with a lower multiplier, again.
TLDR: just give the armor a 0.95 multiplier instead of 1.10.
1 Like
No, it wasn’t. You have to give accurate source to claim it, to disprove soviet designer’s goal of ‘having at least something to protect battleship fights in baltic’s complex theatre around 15 km’, which ends with ‘okay than at least make it survivabble when we’re heading out from baltic’.(Proper 15 km protectioin was able to achieve by late, 88,100 ton Project 24, which even Soviet navy seems as impractical) Oh by the way, not that Mark Stille thing who does not study Soveit navy proper at all, and even post Montana as this:
1 Like
kek
7 Likes
Who could have seen that coming. What a surprise -annoyedface-. The ways of saving and improving the naval gamemode are certainly mysterious and incomprehensible
1 Like
Actually, there won’t be such future. It ends with arrival of Iowa and Soyuz at same time with others. USSR should pass, and USA would rather get NC for least of balance. Even Soyuz is ‘balanced’ like wishes, then Iowa would be another problem for balance.
I’m actually not sure there will be balance even if Gaijin allows paperplan for Japan/Italy and France.
Change the armour to Face hardened, reduce the modifier compared to Rolled Cemented so it’s still better than homogenous but worse than cemented, and implement plate cracking, either make it randomised but virtually guaranteed, so plate will absorb shell but crack or make it resistant only for 1 to 2 shells and then the plate is guaranteed to crack.
I don’t believe it to be a tricky solution.
Beware of pr. 82 and pr. 24 mate.
At least Pr.82 will meet battleship, and Pr. 24 can’t bow-in like Soyuz.
Oh, what a surprise.
Soyuz has the highest win rate, highest amount of naval kills, highest K/D, highest K/S, highest SL gains and highest RP gains.
Almost like having the best shells, best reload, best armor scheme and best armor thickness would play a role on this…
Yamato and Iowa being clowned by some ship thing that could not be made as projected.
11 Likes
You still confuse VM with actual DM sadly…
2 Likes
I am not talking about the visual size of the projectiles; I am talking about the physical space the racks occupy inside the ship.
Do you think this makes sense?
3 Likes
Do you have the images of the full damage model? I wonder what the actual shape of these magazines is, and if there is any ammo in the elevators like there is on other ships.
1 Like
It should be noted that the hitboxes for the internal module view in hangar/port can be manipulated by the devs in order to make examining some parts easier or harder.
If you have datamine info on the true size of the magazines in asset viewer, that is the closest representation to the actual size in the game.
That’s what you’re wrong. As I posted, Ingame Soyuz’s shell room DM is much bigger than visual model. That’s how this work. Shell room exist bigger than visual model so even I point out empty space in VM, it showed as ‘shell room’ and is actually shell room in real damage model.
1 Like
The true size is also the image I uploaded, as it was what moderators showed with asset viewer’s DM
1 Like
I would be very careful what you wish for there because while it sounds cool in principle and in a perfect would i would agree with it being added, I have a sneaking suspicion that gaijin will end up implementing it in such a way that it just ends up being more frustrating than anything.
Afterall look at how their implementation of detailed modules is going…