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
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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…)
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.
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?
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 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.
