Sovetsky Soyuz is blatantly Overpowered

[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…

[Beeschurger]

@굴러온

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)

…so literally guesstimation. no test were held. gotcha.

@굴러온

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

but i already quoted morvran twice. gaijin flat out denied buffing RoF even if it was historical. buffing others was already tried.

@굴러온

And they are reluctant to nerf too. So while there are way to buff others, nerf Soyuz should not be priority,

see point above. buffing others was tried and it went nowhere.

@굴러온

especially when Soyuz is still ‘balanced’ by developers.

the already posted global data dont suggest that to be the case.

@굴러온

nerfing with no reason than ‘bALANCE’ would make good precedent to other ships…

but theres clearly a case to nerf SS due to aforementioned global statistics. You cant have vehicle being such clear and uncontested outlier in effectivity and do nothing.

[侍KAMIKAZE侍]

@굴러온

Well I play Iowa mostly now(next is Soyuz)

You should seriously try Yamato. Maybe it would open your eyes and you would stop filling this chat with such bs about how “realistic” or “balanced” things in naval are.

[kosthar4uk]

@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?

You take the elevator design from a 305mm gun and modify it a little.

[굴러온]

Well it won’t change, as for Yamato it is just problem of trying to build battleship too compact. She needs more displacement to become ‘normal’ design.

I’ve already grinded it, just my priority is on competitive design of Soyuz, Iowa, Bismarck and Richelieu.
In fact I’m all nation grinder, so I don’t have specific bias about ‘nation’, though maybe I have specific bias about ‘design’ of each ships.

We don’t call Maus good design, I’ll stand same for Yamato.

[長門]

@굴러온

We don’t call Maus good design, I’ll stand same for Yamato.

There’s a small difference between these two. One of them is a good design that’s being crippled due to poor game design, the other is the Maus.

[굴러온]

Calling Yamato a ‘good’ design would depend on what to prioritize.
If ‘weight saving’ or ‘weight effectiveness’ is on priority on pacific theatre, Yamato would be a good design.
But on ‘survivability when main belt penetrated’, which was quite important factor on European theatre, Yamato is a very poor design.

And current War Thunder naval’s design is near to European theatre design. I will not call it ‘poor’ design. Especially I’m former WOWs player and see how long range sniping meta makes WOWs boring and users get out from that game.

Plus, even in pacific theatre there were case of close range battle, for example IJN Kirishima vs USS South Dakota & USS Washington.