And it’s make-believe paper navy
3 Likes
How to contradict yourself in one sentence.
The Scharnhorst used to be OP, but it’s not even close to as bad as the Soyuz.
1 Like
No it was more terrible than Soyuz. At least Soyuz can be a easy kill when showng full broadsde, Scharnhorst wasn’t.
As Scharnhorst was, new ‘mechanism’ to counter X makes only other ships more painful. No need.
What need is simple. Closer spawn range. Drastic decrease in player number of Naval Realistic clearly shows that longer spawn range was a huge mistake made by Gaijin, just hearing some non-naval player or don’t know what they were saying in forum. As long as Soyuz stands in a distance where her flat, fast velocity gun shines and she couldn’t show her broadside easily, nothing will change.
2 Likes
Not for long. there were lots of vehicles that could pen the Scharnhorst out realtively shortly after it’s release. Now it just gets graped by the big boys. It’s also a real vehicle and it’s guns have terrible post-pen damage, while the Soyuz has a unrealistic to the point of being impossible amount of filler in it’s unmatched penetration shells. not to mention that the Soyuz was actually impossible for the russians to build, but gaijin isn’t biased at all, inspite of all the evidence and comments from their staff.
3 Likes
Could pen =/= could give critical damage. It’s turtleback make it’s invulnerability for years. Only at this year barbette fire makes her vulnerable.
blah blah blah(giving no accurate report or document that USSR can’t build such ships)
Anyway, as a person who plays battleship since it’s first introduction. It’s funny to hear some saids Scharnhorst was not as OP as Soyuz. Being undetonatable for more than two year, being the most fast ship and compensating low penetration with fast firing gun and superior manuverability, Scharnhorst was more than what Soyuz is right now.
1 Like
Oh, i didn’t realise that you had no integrity, my mistake.
The USSR didn’t have the capability to produce armour plates of that size, thickness or quality. also the gun’s were well beyond their capabilities too. Keep hiding behind your ignorance.
They were both OP, the difference is that the Soyuz is entirely a construct of fiction while the Scharnhorst was a real and powerful ship.
3 Likes
It’s not a battlecruiser. Scharnhorst is a fully fledged battleship by 1930s/40s Germany’s definition. There’s a reason it’s known as [battleship Scharnhorst]
But semantics.
No, it was considerably worse pre-leviathans because you’d 9 times out of 10 spawn within range of it being up your ass and with how bad the average naval player is, usually took the entire team to bring a competent Scharnhorst down with any sort of speed. This is not an exaggeration or hyperbole.
Or you got lucky with secondary SAP as a russian dreadnought and unrepairable flooded him out.
At least you can pop a Soyuz like a balloon at 15km with a Yamato. [If you’re not erased from nearly 18km away by SAP in return].
They would have just substituted the plates. It would have resulted in worse protection (as stated for the umpteenth time in this thread).
2 Likes
Which would have been a great way to balance the ship but for some reason what we have in game is the cope thickness for the worse plates but with full rca quality armor
1 Like
Besides that it faster, have good AA, descent torps and fastest reload.
And shells attracted to magazines before it was nerf batted in Leviathans.
Try to bow tank now within 10km? Instant detonation. Try to fight at range? Shells through the barbette and down the elevator, which equates to either instant death via fire or mag det.
I agree Scharnhorst needed a nerf but Leviathans may have been a bit much. At least Mutsu is probably the scariest thing to see in the 7.0 bracket now. [Like it should be].
Edit
Yes, I know Mutsu is 8.0 but the damn thing is a surface monster.
For those who want to test Soyz and other Big S survivability and weak spots.
So i’ve seen a lot of points being made, and a few very important points are being neglected.
No 1. The soviets couldn’t build the ship.
They couldn’t. They didn’t have the technology to do so and it shows as they didn’t actually build a battleship with post ww1 standards and resorted to buying ships from other countries to mitigate that. Any assumption that they could is based on miraculous technological leaps that took other nations with actually favourable records decades to achieve, it’s like people saying that germany could have built a nuclear bomb in ww2.
The armor was above anything they could build with a high enough quality to be comparable to other nations. The power plant wasn’t even put through trials, which would be needed to determine if it was worth it to even put into the ship. And the worst part, during construction, the rivetting was so bad they wondered if it would hold it’s own weight. Every actual evidence points toward the project never being finished, but “tHe MotHeRlAnd iS sUpEriOr AnD bEtTEr ThAn EvERyOne” people will defend fiction as if it made sense…
Point No 2. Ships (especially larger ones) perform significantly different from the designs and often needed modifications to fix design issues.
Yeah, things like electrical failures, engine efficiency, gun performance can’t be measured in a piece of paper and is often fixed after the ship goes on it’s shakedown cruise. Bismarck’s FCS broke when firing her main guns, US fast battleships had a lot of vibration issues, british 14 in quad turret broke down often in their first years in service. What does all that have to do with anything? Ships don’t operate up to project specs and is a ludicrous idea to think the Soyuz would, so arguing that “That’s how it was in the project so that’s how it should be” is unfair to every built ship currently in game.
Point No. 3 Gaijin’s metric to reload is extremely vague and needs to be made consistent.
IRL actual fire rates were 1 rpm across the board, with the only exceptions being at close range or stationary target, since you have to wait for the previous salvo to land to adjust your shot.
In game we have ships whose reload is based on combat performance I.E US standards have records stating that at best they could do 1.5 rpm, ships whose reload is based on best case turret scenario I.E US 12 in guns (yes, all of them) US 16 in/50, German 15 in and Japanese 36cm 41cm and 46cm, and then soyuz whose reload is based of a gun at shore with no turret. All of the above disregard optimal angle, as having a consistent reload time is already a handout given that in reality fire rates are as volatile as gunpowder.
Point No. 4 The incredible (literally) and large soviet navy.
Ah yes, the powerful and mighty soviet navy, which in nearly 80 years of existence achieved absolutely nothing. Speaking serious now, the russian navy was a joke, as was shown in the performance during the russo-japanese war, and the soviet record after that is even worse, we have the k-19 which suffered a meltdown due to poor maintaining, followed by the soviets deniying anything wrong had happened leading to the deaths of the sailors inside, we have the kirov cruisers with amazing torpedoes whose tubes have to be submerged to work since they are nothing but submarine torpedo tubes put onto a surface ship, or even better, the kuznetsov, the only carrier they could ever build, and became the only carrier to lose an aircraft due to faulty deck equipment, oh no, actually the pilot had plenty of time to land but his superior commanded him to remain on the air waiting for the crew to fix the problem, which ended with the aircraft running out of fuel and crashing into the water. So, that’s the great and unbelievable shitshow known as soviet navy.
Finally, about the current situation of the soyuz in game, the stats are clear and that thing should be nerfed, RoF is preferred as it would still leave soyuz as the best defensive option at the cost of a subpar offensive capability compared to others, i’d go as far as 1.5 rpm as other ships have it and it doesn’t make them useless, but as gaijin likes to undermine playerbase complaints i doubt it would go above 35 seconds. As for battle rating, all of naval needs decompression atm so once more ships are added i see the big three going up above 9.3 even.
14 Likes
Plus, i’ve recently found out that the soyuz has the same ammo rack model as the kronshtadt, same size too, also carries the same amount of ammunition, even though one uses 12 in rounds and the other uses 16 in. And to add wood to the fire, gaijin closed the report stating “lacking historical information” as if logic wasn’t enough in this case and proving they’ll do everything to protect it…
Report: Sovetsky Soyuz has an ammorack that is too tiny for its shells // Gaijin.net // Issues
2 Likes
How many times in this thread I have to say visual model in hangar does not correspond with damage model, not only for Soyuz, but many others ships, aircraft, and tanks.
1 Like
Think about it just a little and you’ll see that this argument makes no sense in this case.
If the game has a damage model that is larger, we could then assume that it has the correct size, if that’s the case, then why not just scale the visual model to match the damage model? It would still not be photorealistic, as gaijin claims it’s not meant to be, but at least the model would be correct, with a minimal effort on the model artist’s end.
So we have two possibilities:
-
The damage model is in fact larger and maybe the correct size, which is not only super lazy of a large studio, but also extremely convenient and difficult to verify.
-
The damage model is not different in size and gaijin is being cheeky with player issued reports, which at this point we know not to be uncommon behavior from them.
So unless you can provide evidence better than a statement from someone at gaijin saying “trust us”, i’m not buying that extremely convenient narrative, no matter how many times you parrot their words.
2 Likes
It is larger. I’ve shown this before in here and you just don’t search it before saying useless things.
Reason is simple: Developers don’t think VM is impotant. Even before advent of Soyuz, there were complaint about British destroyer’s VM in legacy forum and developer’s answer through moderator was it.
Yeah awesome they are slightly larger than the racks on a 306mm battlecruiser. Now do me a favor and take a look at the racks on Iowa or any BB with similar sized ammo and tell me that the size of Soyuzs racks is not complete bs
Its almost like the racks or anything like them never existed and therefore Gaijin just made something up
1 Like
Similar style British 16’'s shell room are also not big.
For Iowa and Yamato, their problem of big shell room comes from historical fact that they store shells on barbette, where you can file only on exterior, not interior due to existence of ammo elevator.
Noticably bigger than Soyuzs with 15 shells less.
The problem of Soyuzs shell room is that its made up as shit and theres no comparison to model it of, because the soviets never built any modern battleships. The fact that Soyuzs model in game is the way it is just perfectly encapsulates that Gaijin gave 0 fucks when implementing it and all naval players suffer for it
4 Likes
Not at all considering Soyuz is 25% longer, so maximum zoom would make Soyuz’s shell room looking smaller.
Also, Nelson class’ shell room is actually 315 rounds shell room, which are 15 rounds larger than Soyuz’s. Current ingame version’s 285 rounds come from the fact that every shell room on Nelson class has 30 practice rounds stored, which could not be used in battle of course.