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.
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.
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.
Yes they are noticably larger what are you talking about. And even if we dont compare it to other countries ammo racks just compare it to Krohnstad then. 305mm vs 406 mm both are 300 shells for a miniscule size increase. Everyone with half a brain and a notion of geometry notices that its bs
1 Like
No it isn’t. Kronshtadt’s shell room DM correspond to it’s VM. Soyuz’s shell room DM is much bigger than it’s VM.
It shows another person who doesn’t know correctly and saying.
It seems your brain is actually half one. Overall today I’m saying Soyuz’s shell room and magazine DM doesn’t follow its VM and showing evidence, then you saying only looking at it’s VM.
Dude i know. Its just not in the slightest accurate plain and simply due to the size increase of every round compared to Kronshtadts
2 Likes