Sovetsky Soyuz is blatantly Overpowered

[굴러온]

Of course the ship is not finished, there are no mounted on ship. 1.7 to 2.6 depending on loading angle is Soviet engineer’s goal when designing their turret(This makes her turret extremely heavy, about 600 tons heavier than Iowa’s one while having similar armor.

Blockquote
Башня МК-1 оснащалась тремя имеющи ми углы возвышения от – 2° до + 45° орудиями 6-37 в индивидуальных люльках со 180-мм, качающимися щитами. Заряжание (с досылкой боеприпаса в ствол с помощью цепного прибойника) осуществлялось при фикси рованном угле возвышения 6°, на который после каждого выстрела ствол приводился автоматически. Поэтому скорострель ность башни зависела от углов возвыше ния орудий при стрельбе: 2,5 выстрела в минуту на ствол при углах до 14° и 1,73 при больших. Для вертикальной и горизон
тальной наводки (скорости 6,2°/с и 4,55°/c соответственно) использовался электропривод с гидравлическими регуляторами скорости. При ручной наводке ее скорость резко снижалась.
(from Vasilev A.M. - Lineinye korabli tipa Sovetskii Souz)

The MK-1 turret was equipped with three B-37 guns in individual cradles with 180-mm swinging shields, with elevation angles from - 2° to + 45°. Loading (with ammunition being fed into the barrel using a chain rammer) was carried out at a fixed elevation angle of 6°, to which the barrel was automatically adjusted after each shot. Therefore, the rate of fire of the turret depended on the elevation angles of the guns during firing: 2.5 rounds per minute per barrel at angles up to 14° and 1.73 at higher angles.

Could you find any of loading assist mechanism on this mount before it gets blast cover for Siege of Leningrad?

@RowanFW

I somewhat disagree with your rebuttals on the previous points.

Well I play Iowa mostly now(next is Soyuz) to compare this two, and the most disturbing thing on Iowa is losing of shell room by barbette fire even when I empty shell rooms over waterline. Except that, I found nothing on this ship is severely inferior to Soyuz in game condition.

[Morvran]

@굴러온

Soviet engineer’s goal

And this is the issue here. It’s a paper figure that Gaijin has accepted as fact. For all we know it would have ended up with a 2 minute reload.

When primary sources for other ships that were actually built to get increased reload is denied because “Developers considered it unnecessary to further increase the rate of fire” (source)then I think there is room to use reload as a balancing tool. Soyuz would in no way suffer by having it’s reload reduced to 35 seconds which is probably a more realistic figure anyway.

[굴러온]

@Morvran

When primary sources for other ships that were actually built to get increased reload is denied because “Developers considered it unnecessary to further increase the rate of fire” (source)then I think there is room to use reload as a balancing tool. Soyuz would in no way suffer by having it’s reload reduced to 35 seconds which is probably a more realistic figure anyway.

Goal of 2.5 doesn’t seem unrealistic as US battleships, with heavier shell and weaker motor, was able to achieve 2.5 in their loading angle. Iowa’s report about buffing it to 24 seconds got denied on ‘balance’ reason. This means developers’ thought on both ship is that 30 seconds is what they think for balance on ‘realistic’ figure.

[Morvran]

Exactly. So realistic figures are denied for balance reasons but Soyuz gets paper figures because “historical accuracy”?

How is that even remotely fair?

[굴러온]

Soyuz also didn’t got it’s best figure from design. It got 29 seconds instead of 24 seconds what it could got best. So it is fair.
Besides, among 8.7 battleships, Yamato is the only one got best paper figure as she can reload in 30 seconds only on loading angles.

Actually I’m on more of buffing both ship’s reload to 24 seconds while nerfing their BR to 9.0. Those two are definitely at the same level of Yamato even with their ‘nerfed’ figure compared to Yamato.

[굴러온]

Also, Rodney’s case is not the same case to Soyuz as at that time when Report was denied, Rodney was facing even 6.0 cruisers when report was denied. I also support that report and got angry when developers said that, but things have changed, and maybe on current status that report can be passed.

There are no specific reason of nerfing it to 35 seconds except ‘because it’s Soviets blah blah’, or it is unfinished ships. In that case, I want to watch what you’ll say if developers decide Lion class battleships’ reload to 35 seconds, which even has less work than Soyuz.

[Morvran]

We tried to get Vanguard it’s 25 seconds relaod and that was denied as well… So…

[굴러온]

AFAIK the reason was because 25 seconds confirmed for old turrets, not on Vanguards new turret(have little different loading system beacuse of shell room/magazine location swapped)

[wolftale]

If we’re going on datamines, then all non-fixed shells explode 100% of the time when the module is completely destroyed, with explosion chance due to fire varying based on the ship and amount of damage. Bravy’s missiles are counted as rockets and are notoriously inert, so you can’t detonate them.

I don’t know the exact formula used to calculate detonation force, but I believe the aux ammo uses the same logic as shell rooms. Therefore, the less ammo you bring, the weaker the explosion, with AP rounds doing less damage because they have less filler.

AA boxes are counted as aux stores for the purposes of the damage model. As for secondary fixed and semi-fixed ammo, I think there’s a provision in there for propellant, but like I said, I don’t know how that specific value is determined.

[Beeschurger]

@굴러온

is Soviet engineer’s goal

so all vehicles, not just ships, should be balanced around their intended combat capability, and not the one they achieved in real life?

or should SS get special treatment?

[굴러온]

@Beeschurger

or should SS get special treatment?

Why it is special treatment when it is not best reload in design? I saids, their goal was 24 seconds in loading angle and ingame they got 29 seconds. It seems more of balance that developers chose.

Plus, then what with all other unfinished ships ingame(German and Italy one) that did not prove they will show their best reload in real life, and some finished ships that gets unreachable reload(Richelieu, Bismarck), or ideal reload(Yamato) in their configuration?

While I repeatedly saids, why trying to nerf one ship that developers already chose some ‘balanced’ then not best on it’s design, while there are plenty of other way to buff other ships? What will you guys would say then when in the future Gaijin comes to those others ships and saying ‘Now it seems that this ship is OP and we will going to nerf, even though current figure is realistic’

[Beeschurger]

@굴러온

Why it is special treatment when it is not best reload in design? I saids, their goal was 24 seconds in loading angle and ingame they got 29 seconds. It seems more of balance that developers chose.

you said yourself that figure comes from testing SS guns in coastal battery, not on the ship. Gaijin already took creative liberty when deciding SS loading time.

@굴러온

while there are plenty of other way to buff other ships?

As Movran said:

@Morvran

When primary sources for other ships that were actually built to get increased reload is denied because “Developers considered it unnecessary to further increase the rate of fire” (source)

That already is a preferential treatment, unique to SS.

@굴러온

What will you guys would say then when in the future Gaijin comes to those others ships and saying ‘Now it seems that this ship is OP and we will going to nerf, even though current figure is realistic’

If this hypothetical future ship is clearly overperforming other ships at its BR, I would probably see it as welcomed balance decision.

And if we look at the last month stats:

Theres clearly an argument to be made that SS needs some sort of nerf, and RoF would be probably the least invasive decision to make. Gaijin said reload time is soft balancing factor and change it as they see fit when it comes to tanks, i dont see a reason why this wouldnt work for ships.

[굴러온]

@Beeschurger

you said yourself that figure comes from testing SS guns in coastal battery, not on the ship. Gaijin already took creative liberty when deciding SS loading time.

You should look again what I said. I saids those figure is come from turret design, not testing gun mount. Testing gun mounts would be even more slower because it has no connection to shell room, and there are no power assisting mechanisms.(It is just gun and holding mount, because it is made only for test puropse)

@Beeschurger

That already is a preferential treatment, unique to SS.

Not unique to SS. Richelieu also got 32 seconds reload which it can’t achieve during wartime, and Bismarck got 23 seconds which in real life would break her hoist. Yamato got 30 seconds which could be only achieved at loading angle(in same condition, Soyuz and Iowa could achieve 24 seconds)
It is not unique SS preferential treatment, actually against-SS treatment cause of balance.

@Beeschurger

Theres clearly an argument to be made that SS needs some sort of nerf, and RoF would be probably the least invasive decision to make.

ROF is the most invasive decsion in real game, considering my experience of playing Rodney and standard battleships in the past.

And on that side, as I said, there are ways to buff other ships. Iowa can achieve 24 seconds at loading angle, for example. Or let’s remove barbette fire spread which is totally inaccurate, to save Bismarck and Roma(also buffing Iowa)

My experience on Sovetsky Soyuz makes conclusion that ROF nerf will not make balance better, as it’s invincible bow standing at long range won’t be solved by that. It is just terrible decision to unsatisfy both who plays Sovetsky Soyuz and those who play against it.

[Der_Zerkquetscher]

Well then. Just “balance” it through repair costs? Cause theres no way you should pay the exact same repair costs of around 46000 sl to repair a yamato, which is less than 1/4th as effective as a soyuz, while also having the exact same modifiers. But exploding to every semi well aimed incoming salvo, whether it hits the angled bulkhead, main ammo, secondary ammo or even absolute stray shots hitting you aa ammo midships. While the other ship is basically invincible if its just sitting bow in or angled. Makes for absolute enjoyable naval top tier experience in the coming months/years. Similar to the scharnhorst situation, only version 2.0 upgrade because this one, it also has guns which are effective at range and hold twice as much tnt equivalent for its shells compared to anyone else’s. I pity everyone playing that, srsly

46 608 sl repair cost divided by the efficiency factor difference from yamato to soyuz gives a solid 10973 SL repair cost for yamato. Probably should be even lower because in addition to paying the same amount to repair and getting much less rewards through kills, guess what? Its win rate (win modifiers on earnings) is 45.9 % compared to the soyuz which comfortably sits at 58.4% in rb despite facing itself.

But, then again, idc i dont really play naval rb anymore. For reasons

[Beeschurger]

@굴러온

I saids those figure is come from turret design, not testing gun mount. Testing gun mounts would be even more slower because it has no connection to shell room, and there are no power assisting mechanisms.

Okay so englighten me, because I might be confused. How was SS RoF estabilished? Was it entirely guesstimation solely from how the turret was designed, or did they hold a test? If so, how was the test held?

@굴러온

It is not unique SS preferential treatment, actually against-SS treatment cause of balance.

fair enough.

@굴러온

ROF is the most invasive decsion in real game,

How it is the most invasive? Youre not removing any shell, youre not removing any capability of the ship, you are not nerfing its armor nor speed.

You are not adding extra modules unique to single or few vehicles at time (like adding turret baskets to only two MBT families and making them part of turret roration mechanism, even the parts that dont actually affect turret rotation), you are not nerfing its turret elevation and depression angles (like by arbitrarily deciding that single MBT family cant depress its gun over the back while not adding this feature to any other MBT family in game).

@굴러온

And on that side, as I said, there are ways to buff other ships. Iowa can achieve 24 seconds at loading angle, for example.

Yes, buffing other ships in RoF would be the least could Gaijin do. Alas, again:

@Morvran

When primary sources for other ships that were actually built to get increased reload is denied because “Developers considered it unnecessary to further increase the rate of fire” (source)

@굴러온

Sovetsky Soyuz makes conclusion that ROF nerf will not make balance better, as it’s invincible bow standing at long range won’t be solved by that

So it is the best armored ship at naval top tier currently, and theres absolutely nothing wrong with excelling in single category. But, as far as Im familiar with naval, issue is SS isnt excelling in single category. Correct me if Im wrong, since I dont have game open currently, but SS currently has one of the fastest reloads found at top tier, and also best AP shell, no?

@굴러온

It is just terrible decision to unsatisfy both who plays Sovetsky Soyuz and those who play against it.

But deciding to do nothing and keeping as things currently are isnt solution either. Given how reluctant Gaijin is to buff things, because god forbid that whatever Gaijin decided to be meta isnt well recieved by players, what else is there to do?

[Der_Zerkquetscher]

@Beeschurger

But deciding to do nothing and keeping as things currently are isnt solution either. Given how reluctant Gaijin is to buff things, because god forbid that whatever Gaijin decided to be meta isnt well recieved by players, what else is there to do?

Not play that bs. Oh wait thats already happening (constant 3 vs 3 naval rb matches filled with bots on maps of which 50% are either too small or just open circles but at least bigger). Nevermind. The snail won’t learn. I mean i would love to play a working naval rb gamemode. But the snail isnt exactly hellbent on improving/balancing it.

[굴러온]

Naval RB on top was always 3 vs 3, so when was you love your naval rb gamemode? You have contradictiion in what you’re saying.

Besides, I can’t even find your profile ingame. What’s your ingame nickname?

[Der_Zerkquetscher]

I have had almost full matches for a short period after the patch. and for at least a year or something until a couple of months before the patch it was 5v5 and 6v6 or even more (im playing on eu servers and always forget to enable other regions when switching to naval, since latency doesnt matter much in naval gameplay i could do that).

Besides, you dont even need to find my profile ingame.

[Beeschurger]

@굴러온

Gaijin sum those two and divide to 2. (2.5 + 1.7)/2 = 2.1 That’s how current ingame Soyuz’s reload rate got settled.

I get that.

@굴러온

While turret in design got a reload range of 2.5(on loading angle) to 1.7(on maximum elevation)

Im asking how soviet engineers reached these numbers. Was it entirely guesstimation or was some sort of test held? If so, how was it held?

@굴러온

Because in war thunder reload is very, very important factor.

and yet, its soft balancing stat as gaijin stated themselves. If vehicle is too weak, they can give it faster reload time (as happened with Abrams). If vehicle is too strong, they can give it slow reload (as is with Leo2s). Generally speaking there should be little to no difference in reload times between 120mm L/44 gun and its derivates armed tanks, yet here we are.

@굴러온

Shell damage doesn’t decided by explosive filler

so how is the Naval damage decided if not by explosive filler? For tanks its primarily decided by either epxlosive filler or mass of the round if HE filler isnt aviable.

@굴러온

Still trying to buff others.

Which gaijin is extremely reluctant to do. While SS statistics are way above its contemporaries, and even significantly better than Iowa.

[굴러온]

@Beeschurger

Im asking how soviet engineers reached these numbers. Was it entirely guesstimation or was some sort of test held? If so, how was it held?

By studying comparative era turret design and their design goal(they were able to access Italian 15’’ design and French 16’’ design, and they also able to get information about US 16’’ turret data thanks to Gibbs & Cox)

@Beeschurger

If vehicle is too weak, they can give it faster reload time (as happened with Abrams).

So while they can buff others, there is no reason to nerf Soyuz even before trying to buff others, isn’t it?

@Beeschurger

so how is the Naval damage decided if not by explosive filler?

Both by shell weight and filler. SAP was too powerful when explosive filler was the only factor, so weight is little more priority in naval. Unless it has too short fuze of British, or too low filler of Italian, shell weight is important than filler for naval now.

@Beeschurger

Which gaijin is extremely reluctant to do.

And they are reluctant to nerf too. So while there are way to buff others, nerf Soyuz should not be priority, especially when Soyuz is still ‘balanced’ by developers.

For example, crew were reduced significantly to original plan.

Spoiler

По штату 1939 г. экипаж корабля должен
был состоять из 49 лиц командного состава
(строевые командиры), 68 лиц начальствую
щего состава (политработники, инженеры,
врачи и т. п.), 317 младших командиров и
1350 краснофлотцев (рядовых), то есть
включал 1784 человека. Кроме того, на корабле предусматривалось размещение шта
ба соединения (17 лиц командного и началь
ствующего состава, несколько младших командиров). Таким образом, общая численность личного состава линкора проекта 23
должна была превысить 2000 человек.

Po shtatu 1939 g. ekipazh korablya dolzhen byl sostoyat’ iz 49 lits komandnogo sostava (stroyevyye komandiry), 68 lits nachal’stvuyu shchego sostava (politrabotniki, inzhenery, vrachi i t. p.), 317 mladshikh komandirov i 1350 krasnoflottsev (ryadovykh), to yest’ vklyuchal 1784 cheloveka. Krome togo, na korable predusmatrivalos’ razmeshcheniye shta ba soyedineniya (17 lits komandnogo i nachal’ stvuyushchego sostava, neskol’ko mladshikh komandirov). Takim obrazom, obshchaya chislennost’ lichnogo sostava linkora proyekta 23 dolzhna byla prevysit’ 2000 chelovek.

According to the 1939 staff, the ship’s crew was to consist of 49 command personnel (line commanders), 68 command personnel (political workers, engineers, doctors, etc.), 317 junior commanders and 1,350 sailors (private), i.e., 1,784 people. In addition, the ship was to accommodate the formation headquarters (17 command and command personnel, several junior commanders). Thus, the total number of personnel of the Project 23 battleship was to exceed 2,000 people.

So basically at least 100, and at maximum about 300 man were less than original plan.
Also, her torpedo protection and number of rudder intentionally following 1936 version, not the 1939 version what it should have, to make ship less manuverable.

Ship is already nerfed in coming. I don’t think further, nerfing with no reason than ‘bALANCE’ would make good precedent to other ships…