Never heard about analogy before?
irrelevent in that context
USSR built rockets in the 60s
did not build top of the line battleships in the 30-40s
That is all.
4 Likes
Except they were doing it in that period, in other case there will be no tread like that. But WW2 broke all that plans.
1 Like
The only reason there is a thread was because Gaijin decided to include paper ships and unfinished bulkheads as playable material, were it for me, it wouldn’t be a thing (and before you ask, yes, it also means not having Montana, H39, Lion or the A-150 thing)
IRL, you’d have a big gap between Novorossiysk, Arkhangelst and cold war ships, at least when it comes to in service vessels
Best battleships operated by the soviet navy in WW2 and early post war were mostly foreign and older designs that were inferior to the latest generation of ships in service at the time (Iowa, Yamato, Bismarck, Roma, Vanguard or Richelieu)
The feasability of Soyuz, war or no war, was also discussed very much in that topic. The guns were given optimistic accuracy in game, the armor was basically not possible to build by soviet shipyards at the time, at least not at that thickness
Soviet navy during WW2 was mostly obsolete and quite useless, except for submarines and some destroyers, but even those operated at smaller scale compared to larger navies. That makes sense since the war was mostly on the ground for that theater
It got a serious boost in the large cruiser and submarine department in the 60s and 70s before slowly decaying again due to budget cuts and… other unforeseen events in the modern days
All that to say : having a prominent Ussr navy in the early cold war wouldn’t bother me as much, because at least they had nice designs for the time. Soyuz just kills the immersion.
If Gaijin is adament on filling all gaps in every category for every tree, then the paper design, no matter the nation, should not overshadow the in service / built vehicle
8 Likes
Do you see what you did there? You used multiple numbers for Scharnhorst because we know them. We don’t for Soyuz, that’s the point.
Do you actually know that? Does Gaijin know that? Does anyone know how these things are supposed to look? If yes then why is there a placeholder in the first place?
With the small difference that Germany and Britain could have built their respective ships and we have other similar ships to compare them to. My entire point is that we do not have anything like that for Soyuz. It’s all pure paper.
12 Likes
Still best in class RPM for 40.6cm guns.
It’s a huge factor in evasive capability. Soyuz’s real life rudder construction would make her incapable of out turning Iowa or Yamato.
940ish meter turning circle vs 720m (Iowa) and 640m (Yamato)
Yet somehow - in game - she’s given the ability to get an insane turning circle she literally couldn’t have due to construction.
While Yamato turns like a brick with a severely gimped turning radius.
No they won’t.
Didn’t finish building.
3 Likes
Except their turn is basically the same. Cause main factor for turning in game is speed. So same “evasion”, but you don’t need much evasion you need positioning.
Same as Soyz.
Except they could produce the armor plates for H39. Soviets would’ve had to import if 1941 didn’t happen.
6 Likes
But in want Montana :(
If they made it an 9.0 event ship
Meaning there’s ships in other nations that would also disappear.
Be careful for what you ask for.
1 Like
sure, there might be some odd gaps here and there, but if done correctly, the overall the loss would be minimal.
Especially now that the ‘no duplicates’ rule has been dropped, and quite a lot of project vessels were fairly unnecessary additions in the first place
I would suggest a Triple-R approach: Revert, Replace, Remove
- Revert: change any unfinished refits to the closest finished refit
- Replace: change vehicle to a member of its class that was finished/commissioned
- Remove: only if the above two options are not applicable, full refund
2 Likes
I do not agree with removing project ships.
Germany has many unfinished ships (12ish? 15? I don’t remember) that will straight up gut an already anemic high to top tier tree.
France will be forced to have two top tiers with one being premium.
Britain will end up with literally nothing at 8.7.
Russia will also be gutted due to having the second highest number of project ships and its 7.x line up will only end up with Guilio Cesare and Royal Sovereign.
Edit
That said, better care for balance needs to be a thing. BR bumps and reductions straight up aren’t enough.
1 Like
*apologies for the late edit, i hit enter too soon and then got distracted
Z15 and Gneisenau dont have to be projects
adding Sachsen never made much sense since Baden was still available
2 1936Cs is, at best, excessive, especially when Z52 is in the game as well
Z51 is straight up pointless, doesn’t do anything dont do better at lower BRs
having both Yorck and Mackensen at the same BR is superfluous, especially when Seidlitz and the Moltkes are absent. I sort of get it from a tree-to-tree balance point of view, but that argument kinda goes out the window given the abysmal state of naval balance in general
so Id say the total of ‘necessary’ project vessels is 2-3: Z46/47 and/or Z52 for a 6 gun DD, and one of the 7.0 battlecruisers, but Id argue the tree could do without those too
as for coastal, I dont really know, nor do I particularly care, but feel free to fill me in
Britain not having an 8.7 is kinda sucky, but that goes for France and Italy as well, I guess the now dropped ‘one hull, one iteration’ rule can sort of compensate for that problem
Russia would be the real loser in this case, but trees with weird starts/gaps/ends are no anomaly in WT. I dont see why ‘prematurely’ capping a tree on the grounds of never finishing any of their battleships is a bad thing
I get that the whole thing is rather subjective, but id rather have odd gaps or big jumps in my trees than ships that never were. Suppose that a bit of reworking in general, or at the very least decompression, could account for such issues
2 Likes
I was including coastal in the count.
1 Like
Italy and France would be fine if they give them better RoF and accuracy.
Honestly, if it didnt have to deal with Soyuz, and Iowa was a bit further away from it. Then Vanguard would be fine, Especially if Vanguard got finished and buffed up to IRL specs. heck Britains 7.7 lineup is a lot of fun if not in an uptier. The biggest problem from not having a top tier is when you are continuously forced to play uptiers into top tier matches in something that cannot cope with it at all. But it would take making the top top tier like 9.0 and that problem just goes away
1 Like
Ohh look someone asking for numbers on never completed ships? Here’s the listing, made out of spite for people that keep saying the USSR/IR tree has the most…
Italy:
• Commandante Margottini, Commandante Medaglie d’Oro class Destroyer
• Etna, Etna class cruiser, Originally ordered as HTMS Taksin, Taksin class cruiser
• Francesco Caracciolo, Francesco Caracciolo Battleship, never finished
• Conte di Cavour, Conte di Cavour class Battleship, AA refit.
Japan:
• Amagi, Amagi class Battlecruiser
• Tosa, Tosa class Battleship
Technically speaking the only true fake vessel since the devs screwed up the model: Type 5, the Project 23 is more real than this…
• Type 5 wooden, launched, Type 5 Steel, never built (I forget the Japanese words meant for the hull versions).
France:
• Clemenceau, Richelieu class Battleship
Germany:
• Z15 Erich Steinbrinck Type 1934A, Projected AA refit from my understanding (subject debated due to serving until wars end)
• SMS Sachsen, Bayern class Battleship, not completed
• Ersatz Yorck, Ersatz Yorck class Battlecruiser, 5% completion
• Gneisenau, Scharnhorst class Battleship, projected armament refit
• Z46 & Z47 Type 1936C, both scrapped on their slips.
• Z51 Type 1942, sunk in air raid iirc.
•Z52 Type 1944, dismantled on slip
• Mackensen, Mackensen class Battlecuiser, never finished
• VS-10 apparently, trails done, ready for fitting out but bombed in air raid.
Current count: X technically.
The Soviets/ Imperial Russia:
• Project 68BIS-ZIF Shcherbakov, projected AA layout
• Project 69 Kronshtadt, 12" armed never completed
• Project 69I Sevastopol, 15" armed never completed
• Project 23 Sovetsky Soyuz, never completed
• Project 41 Erevan, never finished
• Project 82 Stalingrad, never finished
• Izmail class Battlecruiser Izmail, never finished.
Current count: VII
Feels weird finally adding Britain:
• HMS Lion, Lion class Battleship 1938, Never completed.
1 Like
Really thought germany had more than that in game but I guess I was wrong.
I really don’t think the project/incomplete ships are an issue since most of them are either okay to good.
The two outliers is Gneisenau with the 38cm fit and Pr23.
1 Like
If you want, we can count armament that doesn’t appear anywhere else for Germany to get extra points, like Z52 LAA batteries. But yeah at the current time this is all of the never finished vessels, they also technically have the most captured/ requisitioned during building ships.
Likewise, I’ve no problem with them either, many spice up the matches, yet it’ll always be outliners that attached the most hate or thought confirmation bias gets hate for no reason especially USSR/IR ships for that last bit (can think of two ships that got mass fearmongering pre update, but post turned out to be just average).
Huh, oops just spotted a error in my list…
Yeah and I forgot to mention how borderline overpowered Tosa is, given she’s everything Amagi isn’t: well armored, maneuverable and an absolute pain in the ass to kill.