Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'soviet'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Volunteer Programs
  • Feedback and Support
    • Game Support and Bug Reporting
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Contests and Competitions
    • Clan Hub
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Discord


Twitter


Website URL


Instagram


YouTube


Twitch


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 19 results

  1. Tier IX Premium Soviet VMF Destroyer Suggestion: Project 48-K – Yerevan Historical background: The Project 48 destroyer leader, also officially known as the Kiev-class, was designed in response to the arrival of the lead ship of Project 20I destroyer leader – Tashkent, from Italy, along with the subsequent cancellation of other three Tashkent-class destroyer leaders that were planned to be built at the Soviet Union altogether. Originally, the Naval Ministry of the Soviet Navy was expecting to build four Tashkent-class destroyer leaders in the thorough efforts of rebuilding & modernizing both the Baltic, Black Sea & Northern Fleets – the lead ship, Tashkent, built in Italy; the other three to be built at their homeland. However, the Tashkent-class was apparently a foreign-built warship & henceforth, Tashkent was somehow being too alien & problematic for the Soviet shipbuilding standards of its time to incorporate the Italian shipbuilding methodology. As such, Pr. 20I was officially abandoned in favor of Pr. 48 (Kiev-class) for a low-cost shipbuilding alternative, in addition of similar engineering features & parameters analogous to the Tashkent-class. Pr. 48 – Kiev-class ship design was built on the following dimensions: - · Length – 127.8 m · Beam – 11.7 m · Draft – 4.8 m Judging from the overall ship hull dimensions, the Kiev-class ship hull was designed & built largely based on the two predecessors with slight improvements – Pr. 1 – Leningrad-class & Pr. 38 – Minsk-class. Even more so evidently with the very similar propulsion system of 3-shafts, 3-bladed propellers; 3 water-tube boilers, 3 geared steam turbines configuration found on both Leningrad & Minsk-class were also implemented for the Kiev-class, but with more powerful total propulsive output of 90,000 shaft horsepower over the predecessors’ 66,000shp – each propeller shaft has a net output power 30,000shp instead of 22,000shp, which in turn produced the top speed of 42.0 knots compared to both Leningrad’s & Minsk’s 40.0 knots. In overall, Kiev-class was seen as a large improvement over the Minsk-class – with the latter claimed to be an improved version of the Leningrad-class, albeit with admittedly marginal improvements in seaworthiness, operation range & anti-aircraft armament. But for the Kiev-class, she has much greater operation range, much more manoeuvrable, better seaworthiness & has a vastly superior combat performances over the Minsk-class in a considerably large margin, with a combined firepower no worse than the Tashkent-class. Given the Soviet shipbuilders were more familiar with the existing Leningrad-class design, they ultimately preferred to further improve existing tried-and-true design & solution over a rather more foreign & radically different concept. That factor also helped contribute to their convenience of planned mass production of initial 30 Kiev-class destroyer leaders, but later decided to half the production to 15 ships. In comparison with the Tashkent-class in terms of armaments, the Kiev-class featured three 130mm B-2LM twin gun turrets in similar configuration to the Tashkent-class. However, instead of three 533mm 1-N triple torpedo tubes, Kiev-class has two 533mm 2-N quintuple torpedo tubes which grants the destroyer leader slightly more powerful salvo firepower than his/her Italian cousin. As for anti-aircraft armament, Kiev-class was to be armed with a single 76.2mm 39-K twin high-angle AA gun turret similar to Tashkent’s, in addition to four 12.7mm twin-linked DShK heavy machine guns in the form of small DShKM-2B turrets. Though not as powerful as Tashkent’s, but performances would not be worse than Tashkent either. Initially, as mentioned, a total 30 ships were planned to be built in the 3rd Five-Year Plan, but ultimately halved the productions to 15 ships – first 12 ships to be constructed on the 3rd Five-Year Plan & the remaining 3 ships in the 4th Five-Year Plan. 10 out of 15 ships were given a namesake. They were: - Kiev, Yerevan, Stalinabad, Ashkhabad, Alma-Ata, Petrozavadosk, Ochakov, Perekop, Arkhangelsk, Murmansk Only Kiev (lead ship), Yerevan & Stalinabad were officially laid down on the near end of December 1939, however. Though 2 out of 3 laid down ships – Kiev & Yerevan have begun construction at the Marti South shipyard of Nikolayev (now Mykolaiv), whilst the construction order of Stalinabad at a Leningrad shipyard was cancelled & summarily scrapped. Pr. 48 - Kiev-class under construction at Nikolayev No. 198 Shipyard, circa 1939 In August 1941, during the onset of the Great Patriotic War, Kiev was nearly 50% completed & Yerevan was 25.4% completed. But just as when the combined German & Romanian forces invaded Ukraine, both of the incomplete twins – Kiev & Yerevan, were forced to be prematurely launched from the shipyard & towed to the Georgian port of Batumi in January 1942, while the Soviet Navy’s marines, naval infantrymen & coastal defence forces were heavily resisting the advancing Axis forces in Ukraine during the Siege of Sevastopol campaign. Until the near end of the Great Patriotic War in April 1945, both Kiev & Yerevan were towed back to Nikolayev & began plans to complete them under a revised design of Project 48-K. Unfinished Yerevan at Sevastopol, August 1941 The Pr. 48-K plan to complete both Kiev & Yerevan with a list of modernization refit proposals were on the following: - · Replace the 76.2mm 39-K twin AA gun turret with a more powerful 85mm 92-K twin AA gun turret · Further upgrade anti-aircraft armament with eight 37mm twin-linked water-cooled V-11 AA gun mounts · Upgrade both 2-N quintuple torpedo tubes to PTA-53-series quintuple torpedo tubes (presumably PTA-53-48-K) & to be armed with more modern 533mm torpedoes beyond 53-39 (probably from 53-48, 53-49, 53-50/53-50M, 53-51 & up to 53-56) · Refit the ship with a lighter, more thermally efficient steam turbine propulsion system as the expense of reduced top speed from 42.0 knots to 39.5 knots for better seakeeping · Equip the ship with Gyuis-2 and/or Rif surface search radar(s) · Increased total depth charges loaded from 30 to 48 With such promising upgrades, the revised Pr. 48-K would have been effectively reclassified the Kiev-class from a destroyer flotilla leader to a large destroyer based on the Soviet Navy’s postwar ship classification combat roles, aligned with both Pr. 35 – Udaloy-class & Pr. 40/Pr. 40N. However, in reality, such upgrade would not only increase the ship’s displacement by nearly 400 tons, but would also cause stability issue due to the ship design’s constraints & limitations should the latest gun firing control radar be fitted on the ship. Ultimately, Pr. 48-K was eventually fell out of favour, abandoned any further developments & had those two ill-fated ships be summarily scrapped or used as a target ship hulks. As such, every resource planned for the revised Kiev-class were then allocated to Pr. 30-bis “Smeltiy”/Skoryy-class destroyer – a postwar modernized version of Pr. 30-K – Ognevoy-class (another ship project revised alongside Pr. 29-K – Yastreb-class frigate/”guard ship”, Pr. 48-K – Kiev-class large destroyer & Pr. 68-K – Chapayev-class light cruiser). In this article, I hereby to propose Kiev’s brother/sister ship – Yerevan to be a potential Tier IX premium destroyer-class warship, purchasable with coals in the Armory store worth more than 200,000 coals & never exceed 240,000 coals. How would Yerevan present in-game & how would he/she stand out from other baseline ships at the same tier as a premium ship? Summary · Based on the historical & technical backgrounds of the Kiev-class destroyer as stated above, Yerevan will be based mostly on the actual Pr. 48-K refit plan. Yerevan will not be played as a usual destroyer flotilla leader class like his/her lead brother/sister ship Kiev, but as a large destroyer-type just like Pr. 35 – Udaloy & Pr. 40N – Grozovoy. In other words, Yerevan will be played like Kiev with Udaloy’s gimmicks & quirks. · In terms of overall ship performance parameters, Yerevan will largely retain most upgraded Kiev’s combat parameters, but with some slight improvements. Except the top speed will reduce to 39.5 knots & probably gain a marginal buff in turning radius & rudder shift time, because of a more efficient propulsion system fitted on the ship, which would then pass down to Pr. 30-bis – Smeltiy/Skoryy-class destroyer. · Whilst representing a vast improvement over Kiev, Yerevan is expecting to either perform comparably or slightly better than Tashkent, as well as no worse than Udaloy in some aspects as a large destroyer, in addition of surveillance radar for a more tactical utility role. As a brother/sister ship to Kiev, Yerevan retains many of Kiev’s physical appearance along with technical design flaws & quirks. However, Yerevan would appear with some notable differences from Kiev, which are in terms of armament, propulsion parameters & a few additional loadouts. Yerevan’s armament would be radically different from Kiev as of the following: - 3 x 2 – 130mm B-2LM twin gun turrets -or- 3 x 2 – 130mm B-2-U or BL-109 twin DP gun turrets (like Udaloy’s & aligns with Tashkent’s already woeful circumstances) 1 x 2 – 85mm 92-K twin DP gun turret (same as Kiev’s unique feature of additional secondary guns) 9 x 2 – 37mm V-11 twin water-cooled AA gun mounts 2 x 5 – 533mm PTA-53-48 quintuple torpedo tubes; armed with either two choices of 53-48, 53-49, 53-50, 53-51 & up to 53-56 torpedoes in selection range (8.0 – 10.0 km in range at the very least) Possible consumables (excluding Damage Control Party): - Repair Team Defensive AA [Smoke Screen] [Engine Boost] Surveillance Radar (Gyuis-2 or Rif surface search radar) Both Smoke Screen & Engine Boost should be an optional choice, so that Yerevan could stand out from both Tashkent & Udaloy at the same tier in consumable gimmicks. Or rather, the pre-0.9.5 Soviet large destroyers’ tactical handicap with consumables like Udaloy’s. Even more so with a surface search surveillance radar to grant Yerevan a much needed tactical & strategic advantages for the fleet, which neither Tashkent nor Udaloy could ever had. Furthermore, unlike Kiev, Yerevan can finally access to the final ship upgrade slot 6 to further enhance Yerevan’s combat performances. No main gun firing range upgrade like the rest of the Soviet destroyers, however. In terms of combat parameters, Yerevan’s possible advantages over Tashkent will obviously be having a much lower ship design in concealment & better handling in maneuverability, though at the expense of lower HP & slower top speed. However, if comparing with Udaloy, 39.5 knots is far from being at the worst off in the spectrum & the difference is relatively minuscule compared to Udaloy’s 40.0 knots in top speed as it is on par with Grozovoy’s. But regardless, the supposed “downgrade” in top speed from 42.5 knots to 39.5 knots by 3.0 knots is relatively minor & would not adversely affect Yerevan’s performances in a rather negative way. Given the reduced top speed, Yerevan may expect to be marginally or slightly more maneuverable than Kiev – slightly smaller turning radius & marginally shorter rudder shift time. Nevertheless, Yerevan would be, in overall, a vast improvement over his/her brother/sister ship – Kiev, in most aspects. Whilst Yerevan would also perform comparably with both of his/her cousin combined – Udaloy & Tashkent, at the same tier of Tier IX. Thus, to summarize the possible advantages over Tashkent and/or Udaloy are of the following: - · Slightly smaller ship profile, hence slightly stealthier than either of them (albeit in a relatively small degree) · Outmatches Tashkent in torpedoes payload, could be a lot better if a postwar torpedoes with 10.0 km range are given · Much more manoeuvrable than Tashkent & somehow as maneuverable as Udaloy · Superior anti-aircraft firepower (depending on the choice of 130mm DP guns) · The only destroyer with a secondary armament, like Kiev, to finish off a crippled enemy destroyer, though admittedly in a relatively minuscule chance · Has surveillance radar to stand out as a more tactical & strategic value asset for reconnaissance & coordinated operations, especially useful when cyclone & thunderstorm limits visual range As for weaknesses: - · Weaker survivability than both Tashkent & Udaloy nonetheless · Slower than Tashkent, but not to Udaloy’s case · Torpedoes armament may not be as flexible as an upgraded Udaloy · Somewhat more unstable in gun fire control on full speed maneuvers · Surveillance radar may be severely short in time duration On side note, it was stated that the Kiev-class was supposed to be a spiritual successor to the Tashkent-class & was expecting the former to either be comparable or would have been projected to perform better than the latter – which is quite relatable to a parallel case of both the Swedish Navy’s Halland-class & Östergötland-class destroyers. With Yerevan representing as the Tier IX premium Kiev-class with postwar technology fitted on board to be as capable as Tashkent or better & no worse than Udaloy-class in combat performances, that would be a given!
  2. The following is a review of Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya, a ship kindly provided to me by Wargaming. This is the release version of the vessel and these stats are current as of July 27th, 2017. You don't wanna know how many times I misspelled that. Quick Summary: An ugly-as-sin Soviet battleship with twelve 305mm guns, surprisingly good anti-aircraft firepower and a unique Damage Control Party consumable. Cost: Undisclosed at the time of publishing. Patch and Date Written: 0.6.8. July 24th, 2017 until July 27th, 2017. Closest in-Game Contemporary Imperator Nikolai I, Tier IV Russian Battleship Degree of Similarity: Clone / Sister-Ship / Related Class / Similar Role / Unique The Gangut-class of Battleships, to which Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya belongs, precedes the Imperator Nikolai I through the Imperatrista Mariya-class of battleships, making the two ships two generations removed from one another. The two ships look very similar, though Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya is quite obviously a more modernized (and ooglay) looking ship that shares the same design philosophy. Overall, Imperator Nikolai I is slower, tougher, with easier to use artillery. Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya is faster (but not much faster), with a quicker reload and comes with much better anti-aircraft firepower. Tier for tier, Nikolai is the better boat, hands down. I don't think anyone's surprised. PROs Unique Damage Control Party consumable, with an accelerated recovery time (30s/20s) between uses. Excellent waterline protection for bow tanking. Powerful broadside with twelve 305mm rifles, creating large alpha strikes & good DPM. Except for tiny sections of the bow and stern, her main hull and deck are all but immune to cruiser-caliber HE shells. Good anti-aircraft firepower for her tier. Small surface detection range for a battleship of 13.68km. Gangut butt is best butt. CONs Damage Control Party has a finite number of charges per match. Small hit point pool of 42,500. Poor overall protection with 225mm belt armour, 203mm turret faces and 10% torpedo damage reduction. Awkward gun placement combined with a slow turret traverse makes gun handling feel frustrating. Her 305mm lack penetration power, especially when facing tier VII ships. Pathetic secondary gun battery. Short ranged AA firepower and unable to benefit from Manual Fire Control for AA Armament. Feels rather blind without a spotter aircraft or float-plane fighter. This is one of those warships that I've been eagerly awaiting to join the game. Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya is the lead ship of the Gangut-class Battleships. She's actually the Gangut-herself, renamed by the Soviets after the Revolution. She appears in this game in her full modernization received by 1944/1945. This means she's a contemporary to the British Dreadnought-class battleship gussied up and shoe horned in a tier V. Colour me amused. Let's take a look under the hood. Options Like all battleships that aren't American or Japanese (or Warspite), Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya's Damage Control Party has a 15s active period where it will not only remove any critical hits from damaged modules (as well as putting out fires and stopping floods), it will also prevent such damage from being reapplied so long as the consumable is active. Where this ship differs is with this consumable's reset timer. Normally, battleships suffer up to a two-minute cooldown between uses. This can be reduced to a minute and twenty seconds with the premium version. Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya has a thirty second reset timer, standard. The premium version drops this down to a mere twenty (!) seconds. And you're going to want the premium version of the consumable -- stock, Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya can only use this consumable three times. Taking the premium version will not only accelerate her reset timer, it will also provide an additional charge. This can be further boosted with the Superintendent commander's skill to bring the total up to five. Her Repair Party is standard for most Battleships, healing back 14% of her maximum HP over 28s. Oktryabrskaya Revolutsiya has the option of an alternative premium camouflage. Consumables: Damage Control Party Repair Party Module Upgrades: Three slots, standard Battleship options. The Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya does not get access to the American Artillery Plotting Room 1 upgrade. Premium Camouflage: Oktyabrskaya has the option of two different camouflages. Her default camouflage is Type 9, tier II to V standard. This provides 30% bonus experience gains, 3% reduction in surface detection and 4% reduction in enemy accuracy. Alternatively, you can purchase (for 1,000 doubloons) Krasny Oktyabr - Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya. This is a cosmetic camouflage in the same vein as the USS Texas' Stars and Stripes camouflage. This provides the same bonuses as the stock camouflage. The optional Krasny Oktyabr camouflage does not provide any additional bonuses over the default camo and can be purchased for 1,000 doubloons. For upgrades, select the following: In your first slot, take Main Armaments Modification 1. This will help keep your guns active and will better allow you to face-tank incoming rounds. Your turrets will be disabled frequently and this will help mitigate this. In your second slot, take Aiming Systems Modification 1. Oktyabrskaya is a Soviet Battleship and she needs all of the dispersion help she can get. Alternatively, if you want to play with something sub-optimal, you can play up to her AA strengths and use AA Guns Modification 2 to help boost their range. This really helps if your Captain also has Advanced Fire Training. This can make tier IV and V carriers cry though be aware she'll never hold a candle to USS Texas. Do keep in mind this is highly situational in its use, it will not protect you against tier VI+ CVs and you do suffer a small performance hit for taking this upgrade instead of the aiming modification. In your final slot, take Damage Control System Modification 1. This will bump your torpedo damage reduction up from 10% to 13%. Firepower Primary Battery: Twelve 305mm rifles in an A-P-Q-X configuration. Secondary Battery: Ten 120mm rifles in casemates with six forward facing and four rear facing emplacements. Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya has marginally worse shell penetration compared to Scharnhorst which weighs in at 455mm / 363mm / 289mm respectively. This sits much further behind the 356mm guns found on New York and Texas with their values of 575mm / 467mm / 381mm and even the poor penetration values of HMS Hood at 491mm / 406mm / 337mm. This explains some of the difficulty this ship experiences when uptiered, especially against German and American Battleships. When this happens, choose soft targets or be flexible with your ammunition types. Let's start with her secondaries: They're terrible. By late WW2, the Soviet Army had already cannibalized six of her sixteen original secondary gun mounts for use in the defense of the Siege of Leningrad. This leaves Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya with a mere ten gun mounts for self defense and these guns are not up to the task. They are mounted in casemates down the sides of the ship, with three facing forward and two aft per side. In theory you could get five guns to engage an enemy ship, but that's seldom the case. Usually it's only three. They have many problems. We can forgive their lack of range. 4.0km is pretty typical for low to mid tier battleships. What's less forgivable is their horrid rate of fire at a mere 7.0rpm. We'd expect this of larger caliber guns as the alpha damage (and increased penetration) from individual hits would make up for the disparity in DPM. However, Oktyabrskaya Revolutisya's secondaries are a mere 120mm in size, dealing a pathetic 1,700 alpha damage and being capable of penetrating 19mm of armour or less. The only redeemable quality is their high chance to set fires per hit at a respectable 8% which, some will rightly argue, is a very sizable perk. Still, with the low volume of fire coming off the ship, any blazes will be a surprise. Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya uses the same guns found Imperator Nikolai I but with improved characteristics in range (16.8km versus 14.1km), rate of fire (1.88rpm versus 1.67rpm) but worse overall shell groupings (1.8 sigma versus 2.0 sigma). Their weapon performance is otherwise identical . While these are formidable weapons in the limited matchmaker enjoyed by Nikolai at tier IV, the maps upon which Nikolai plays are small, the engagements ranges short, the action close and her opponents soft skinned. They really start to feel long in the tooth when regularly facing the demands found at tiers VI and VII that Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya faces. These are not bad weapons. For 305mm rifles, they have very high damage potential. Her AP shells are the hardest hitting of any of the twelve-inch guns with 8,600 alpha strike. The improved rate of fire over Nikolai combined with the twelve rifles enables Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya to compete well with the damage output of her peers. She is quite capable of deleting any cruiser withing her matchmaking spread from nearly any angle and at anywhere within her range, or biting big 9,000 to 12,000 chunks out of a battleship, even without any citadel penetrations. These guns aren't without their issues, however. First, they are not as well situated as Nikolai's guns. One of the notable strengths of Imperator Nikolai I is her ability to quickly reacquire targets on either side of the ship grace of having her A, P and Q batteries all forward facing. This made it very easy for her to brawl and face tank. Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya's P turret is rear facing, reducing her ability to shift her fire from port to starboard and back with anything resembling alacrity. It's not uncommon for P turret to be horribly out of position and unable to fire, or the ship needing the use of rudder to bring all of her guns on target. With a glacial rate of rotation of 56.3s for a 180º turn, this problem is exacerbated. This is, singly, the most frustrating aspect about this ship. Combined with this, her X turret has limited fields of fire and can only engage targets 39º off her bow. Opening fire with her X-turret opens this ship up to reprisals, so make sure you time your fire correctly. That ticks off problems two, three and four. Problem number five is one of penetration. As mentioned previously, these guns perform brilliantly on Imperator Nikolai I with the close-range encounters she typically faces. With Oktyabrskaya Revolutisya's ability to extend the weapon reach another 2.7km, the deficiencies in shell penetration become much more pronounced. These are not high-penetration guns and their performance drops below 400mm worth of penetration at about 7km, precluding her from reliably landing citadel hits on enemy battleships beyond this range. She loses the ability to reliably challenge battleship belt armour at 11km. Like other low-penetration battleships such as HMS Hood and Scharnhorst, it's important to shift fire from attempting citadel hits to instead aim for the upper hull of enemy dreadnoughts at these ranges. Otherwise, you'll find a lot of shells shatter, scatter and bounce off armoured belts. Her high explosive shells are passable but unremarkable. They do enjoy a high chance to start fires per shell at 33% and this can be a reasonable alternative when facing hard targets. This shouldn't be the default ammunition selected when facing an angled ship, however. Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya can overmatch up to 20mm of bow armour which includes all cruisers within her matchmaking spread as well as all tier IV and V battleships. Here's the final fly in the ointment: Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya's main battery has only 203mm worth of armour and a maximum of 150mm of barbette protection. Her guns take penetrating hits often. Even with Main Armaments Modification 1 and Preventative Maintenance, critical hits are common place and catastrophic turret destruction isn't a rare occurrence. The closer Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya gets to the enemy, the more often her turrets end up taking a lot of the abuse thrown at her. Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya has guns that are meant for brawling, but they're not quite ideally suited for such. Her guns are vulnerable for a battleship. The combination of poor turret placement, traverse times and fire angles increases the challenge too, and you can forget about her secondaries helping out. Still, it's hard to argue with twelve rifles that put out more potential damage than ten 356mm guns. Summary: Gun handling is very poor and cannot be significantly improved. Range is decent, firepower is good, penetration is fine at close to medium ranges. Challenging battleships outside of 10km requires careful aim or switching to HE. Her secondaries suck moose balls. Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya allows us to now plot the progression of Soviet Battleship dispersion over distance. It appears to be similar to American Battleship dispersion but with very slightly improved accuracy over distance and slightly worse accuracy at closer ranges. This places the Russians behind the Japanese and British for battleship accuracy and ahead of American and German Battleships and probably the French. We'll need another French battleship in game before that can be made conclusive. Manoeuvrability Top Speed: 23.0knotsTurning Radius: 630mRudder Shift: 12.6s Maximum Turn Rate: 4.3º per second. Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya is faster than a brick. Hooray! At a maximum speed of 23 knots (23.2 knots on a good day) she's not much faster, though. In practice, if you're taking the appropriate WASD anti-torpedo hax counter measures in mind (or just helping her sluggish turrets track targets), she's usually sailing at less than 20 knots. Like most battleships, Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya loses about a little more than a quarter of her maximum speed while under manoeuvres. With her rudder hard over, she'll bleed down to 17.2 knots and she will not recover this speed quickly. This isn't a very flexible ship and on larger maps, she struggles as much as Warspite does to get from A to B. For a rate of turn, Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya measures up rather well. She's not as agile as HMS Warspite -- arguably one of the fastest turning mid to late tier Battleships, but she does alright. At 4.3º per second, she's halfway between Warspite's 4.5º and the 4.0º per second rotation of New Mexico. Her 630m turning circle is comfortable, as is her 12.6s rudder shift time. Both allow her to slip between islands and slide between torpedo runs with ease. Be advised that as a tier V ship she cannot improve her rudder shift in any way. The only downside is that her turrets cannot keep up. They rotate at a mere 3.2º per second, and even Expert Marksman will not correct this, capping them out at 3.9º per second. Players will be tempted to use their rudder to accelerate the rotation of their guns -- a problem compounded by the need for P & X turret to rotate a minimum of 180º to engage targets on the other side of the ship. Given the problems Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya has with her armour scheme, the inevitable over angling this causes can lead to the ship's destruction in short order. As you'll see in the next section, Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya excels at tanking but from one direction (and one direction only). This places a burden on her movement expectations. You need to very carefully consider your lines of engagement. Her guns will not allow her to quickly acquire a secondary target coming from an unseen quarter and her armour will not stand up to abuse. Over extend, and you're dead. Allow someone to get your flank and you're dead. Careful positioning is the only way to counter this and she's not fast enough to allow you to recover from these mistakes. DurabilityHit Points: 42,500Citadel Protection: 225mm belt + 38mm turtleback + 19mm citadel wall Min Bow & Deck Armour: 19mm (50mm to 125mm waterline protection) Torpedo Damage Reduction: 10% The major external armour values of Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya's protection scheme (rear architecture visible in insert). Note that while her armour isn't thick overall, having a little bit of armour almost everywhere provides some interesting quirks where HE and AP penetration are concerned. Her major weak spot is the 19mm 'beak' of her bow. Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya will deliver a lot of mixed messages when you begin to analyze her survivability. She's a story of contrasts. It's best summarized by a quick lists of pros & cons The Good - Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya has an armour design of a first generation dreadnought where the armour is spread out across the whole vessel. The armour isn't as thick around her vitals as it will become with more modern designs, but this does provide the following benefits: Short of her superstructure and tiny weak spots on her bow and stern, she is largely immune to direct damage from destroyer and cruiser-caliber HE shells. Only the Yorck can damage her reliably with HE. Even Inertial Fuse for HE Shells does not provide 152mm armed cruisers with enough penetration to regularly land damaging hits. The entirety of her waterline, from bow to stern is covered by a minimum of 50mm worth of armour with most of it being at least 125mm. She will bounce almost everything thrown at her when she angles properly. She can absolutely shut down attempts to stack damage over time effects on her with her short cooldown Damage Control Party. The Bad - The big flaw about having armour spread out everywhere is that it's not especially thick where you need it most. Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya's citadel protection is the worst at her tier with a maximum of 282mm worth of protection between the three layers of armour over her machine spaces. She is extremely vulnerable to taking citadel hits when she does not angle properly. Her turret faces are extremely thin for a battleship at a mere 203mm thick. Even sloped back as they are (40º) this provides no more than 265mm worth of protection against shots at point blank range. Her barbettes are worse at only 150mm thick. Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya takes frequent critical hits to her guns, even from cruiser-caliber shells. She has almost no torpedo protection. Her Damage Control Party can run out. She has the lowest hit point total among battleships at her tier. So, she's a tough battleship that seems to shrug off AP and HE shells without issue one minute and, with one mistake, she's a sinking wreck the next. She can seem very forgiving but she punishes players dearly for their misplays. The end is usually quite abrupt. One of the culprits for this feast and famine durability is her low hit point total. Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya is not a very large vessel. Not only can she survive less damage overall, this also reduces the amount of returns she sees from her Repair Party. Her healing consumable can only recovery 5,950hp per charge. The two most likely culprits of Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya's demise are torpedoes and AP shells. 'Well DUH,' you might say, but Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya takes battleship AP and torpedo vulnerability a step further than most battleships. Over angling is deadly to this battleship, with her belt armour at 31º only increasing to a relative thickness of ~435mm. This is well inside the penetration values of the American and Japanese 356mm guns at 10km or less and can result in the Oktryabrskaya Revolutsiya taking heavy damage from volleys. This is an affliction similar to the one affecting Kongo -- veterans of this ships should be well familiar with this frustration. Texas and König are more forgiving of angling mistakes, grace of the raw thickness of their belt armour which can present a formidable obstacle. Proper management of Oktyabrskya Revolutsiya's angles of approach is key. Never, ever give up her sides. Fortunately, Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya's armour scheme is proof against most heavy cruiser fire. Even the high penetration, high Krupp values of the USN 203mm from Pensacola and Indianapolis cannot citadel her outside of 5.0km ranges, even against her flush broadside. This ship has very little in the way of torpedo protection, taking near full health strikes from any fish that strike her hull. She starts with only a 10% damage reduction while König, Kaiser, New York and Texas boast a minimum of 22% and as much as 31%. Citadel protection of the tier V Battleships, including the WiP Iron Duke. * Hits penetrating torpedo bulges but not into the ship itself do not strip hit points from a vessel. To this end, the thickness of the belt armour is paramount for preventing ships from taking penetration damage. This explains why ships like Kongo still feel "soft skinned" even though she has similar levels of citadel protection to other battleships. Note that the angle turtleback armour is measured from the vertical, so 90º would be a horizontal piece of steel. Turtleback armour isn't the be-all, end-all for citadel protection. Burying the citadel deep beneath the waterline seems to do more for keeping these vulnerable areas safe. Where Otkyabrskaya Revolutsiya really stands apart from all other Battleships is her Damage Control Party. As previously mentioned in the options section, this has an accelerated reset timer of 30s/20s depending on the stock or premium version. With the skills High Alert, Jack of All Trades and the signal flag November Foxtrot, you could theoretically get this reset timer down to 16 seconds (that's a hell of an investment for a mere four second gain). On paper it would appear to give this Russian battleship near immunity to damage over time effects. However, the limited number of charges on the consumable precludes that. In my experience, it's better to keep to the same habits you would use with other battleships. Do not activate Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya's Damage Control Party until there are two fires or a flood present. This will prevent you from running out of charges too early on in a match. You have the option of accelerating the use of the consumable when it will save you, but be cautious of over use. When I played this ship, I always began with five charges available and I only ran out during one match. Concealment & Camouflage Base Surface Detection Range: 13.68km Air Detection Range: 9.8km Minimum Surface Detection Range: 11.41km Main Battery Firing Range: 16.83km Surface Detection Rank within Tier: 1st Surface Detection Rank within Matchmaking: 3rd Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya is one damn stealthy battleship. Only Imperator Nikolai I has less stock surface detection range. Arkansas Beta can out match her grace of its ship-defining access to extra upgrade slots that lets her potentially use Concealment Modification 1. But other than that, Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya is always going to see enemy battleships before they see her. This is a good thing for this vessel as this not only shores up her survivability, but it also lets her undermine one of the weaknesses of her main battery. She can close the distance and get close to her optimal firing range and not have to suffer the issues of her penetration. I do question how exactly Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya is justified as being so stealthy. I mean, she's got a large enough superstructure to make Fuso say: "Whoa, that's a bit excessive, don'tcha think!?" Maybe the lookouts get blinded by the hideousness of this ship that they fail to relay her position? Well, that's certainly one way of staying undetected. Anti-Aircraft Defense AA Battery Calibers: 76mm / 37mm / 12.7mmAA Umbrella Ranges: 3.5km / 3.5km / 1.2kmAA DPS per Aura: 21 / 103 / 47 For a tier V battleship, Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya has good AA defense. It's not exceptional, however. She stands above all of her contemporaries with the notable exception of the American premium, USS Texas. She actually shares the Lone Star State's AA flaw with her anti-aircraft guns being limited to self defense ranges. Her DPS weighs in at just shy of half the overall firepower of the American vessel and is comparable to HMS Warspite's totals while being a full tier lower. This is a very respectable sum and can form the basis of an efficient self defense umbrella should a player elect to increase this further. Basic Fire Training and Advanced Fire Training along with the upgrade AA Guns Modification 2 will round out Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya's AA total at approximately 207dps with the majority of that firepower reaching up to 5.1km. She does not possess anti-aircraft mounts big enough to benefit from Manual Fire Control for AA Armament, so this skill should be avoided. Short of taking the November Echo Setteseven signal, this is the limit of the pre-game improvements that can be made. Left on it's own, Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya's anti-aircraft firepower is okay -- enough to bruise carrier squadrons up to tier V and make it far too expensive for tier IV carriers to make continued attack runs against you. The heavy specialization will make her a similarly prickly target for tier V carriers, draining their flight hangars of strike aircraft. However, she cannot make her anti-aircraft firepower strong enough to dissuade tier VI+ carriers, never mind provide her with the illusion of being safe from their predation. As word gets out about her Damage Control Party, it's possible that focus from enemy carriers will drop off. Carriers cannot stack damage over time effects on Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya. Dive Bombers start fires? Put them out. Within twenty seconds after it's active period ends it will be available again to stop any follow-up floods. It often takes carriers that long to line up their second attack run so the risks of receiving stacked damage effects is very low. Short of dealing massive alpha strikes, picking on Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya with combined air strikes just isn't worth the time and effort. A Tale of Two Builds Let's not mince words. Here's the optimal build for Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya. Here's what you take for your first 10pts: From the first tier, Preventative Maintenance is the best choice. However, if you find yourself struggling not only with situational and map awareness, but risk assessment, then Priority Target becomes more valuable. From tier two, take Expert Marksman. This will increase your turret rotation up to 3.9º per second. This is still terrible, but it's a damned sight better than it was. At tier three, take Superintendent. This doubles up to give you an extra charge of both Damage Control Party and Repair Party. You should still be taking the premium version of both of these consumables, by the way. This skill doesn't substitute the premium consumable, it only supplements it. And finally, take Concealment Expert at tier four. This plays to Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya's strengths and lets you get into and out of trouble so much easier. From here, pick up Adrenaline Rush to boost your rate of fire as you take damage. This should be followed up with Basic Fire Training and Advanced Fire Training to boost your good AA power. Carriers are much more commonplace at low tiers, so you will get good use out of these skills, though they have diminishing returns when facing tier VI and VII aircraft carriers. The standard battleship survivability skills have much less value due to Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya's Damage Control Party. However, a reasonable alternative to the AA build is to keep Adrenaline Rush but take Basics of Survivability and Vigilance instead. The former will reduce the damage taken from single-fires (which you should normally let run their full course) and Vigilance will give you a bit more warning on torpedoes. This is handy given her preference to be up front. With the one point leftover, double back and grab Priority Target or Preventative Maintenance -- whichever one you skipped out on at tier one. Overall Impressions Skill Floor: Simple / Casual / Challenging / Difficult I still have concerns that the management of the charges on Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya's Damage Control Party will present a skill-barrier for casual players who pick up this ship. Having five charges through the use of Superintendent and the premium version of the consumable is very comfortable. Three would not be. There's the added problems of her bad traverse and her squishy-as-an-Omaha (I exaggerate) citadel. Yeah, I can see a lot of inexperienced players being frustrated with this ship. Skill Ceiling: Low / Moderate / High / Extreme This ship is rather inflexible. While she has the firepower to really carry a match, she's missing that element of speed to take her carries to the penultimate level. Most of the usual battleship tricks apply to this ship. The gimmick of her Damage Control Party is another parlor trick she can play against her opponents. Mouse's Summary: You're probably going to hear a lot of negative press about this ship facing higher tiered ships. Look, if you're normally intimidated by facing ships two tiers higher, then yeah, keep clear. However, Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya can easily punch over her weight class. Seriously. Her guns are good. Her stealth is good. Her durability is good. You can make that work. Speaking of her guns -- treat them like Scharnhorst's AP shells and you'll do just fine. It's twelve Scharnhorst guns every 32 seconds as opposed to nine every 20s. The biggest hurdle in this ship is overcoming the awful traverse and placement of P-turret. Seriously, you're going to want to use your rudder to accelerate it's turn. Just don't do it. I dunno how many times this caused me to over angle and get me sunk. I loved playing this ugly ship. It's amazing how many problems you can solve with 5.65 tons of Stalinium. Every thirty-two seconds, there's another problem solved. Despite the teething issues I had with her gun traverse, this is a fun ship to play. She's as unsubtle as she looks. She hits like a truck, she tanks like a truck, and she looks like something a truck ran over. There was only one problem I really had with her: She doesn't brawl well. Imperator Nikolai I brawls with the best of them, so I thought it natural to give it a go in Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya. Imagine to my surprise to find out she had issues here. Don't get me wrong -- she's an absolute rockstar from the moment you set your sights on your prey and during the opening stages. She bow tanks with the best of 'em and her 305mm guns really put down the hurt. She just can't seem to finish the fights she starts. Everything on the approach will be just fine, but it's that key moment when your ship's paths cross alongside one another that everything goes to Hell. Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya eats citadel hits like an Omaha in these engagements. It's like one moment she's a big ol' battleship and the next she's some wussy German light cruiser with an allergic reaction to loud noises. If you can survive that crossover, you should be okay. Her best-butt is pretty tanky. Just don't over angle. But it's surviving that crossover that's really going to be the clincher. I've only managed it once in all of my test games. It made me have a sad. Overall, this ship is a great addition to the meta. She's strong without being unfair. She's got flaws that can be exploited and I appreciate that not only from the challenge playing her well but also in anticipation of playing against her in the future. This battleship will make cruisers and gunship destroyers cry for the ease at which she shrugs off their fire damage. She'll frustrate CVs by negating their damage over time effects. Yet, torpedo boats will laugh at the ease at which they dispatch her small hit point pool and lack of torpedo protection. Enemy battleships that learn her weaknesses can bully her for days. I am very much looking forward to this ship being made widely available. Would I Recommend? Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya is tier V and that's going to be a huge strike against her for many players. This tier is the first one out of the kiddy-pool, so to speak, and she shoulders an undue amount of Matchmaking burden to populate tier VI and VII matches. Tier V faces higher tiered opponents often in Random Battles -- maybe too often in the views of some players. Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya isn't ideal for such fights, but she can certainly hold her own and she can certainly perform. PVE Battles How well does the ship maintain profitability in Co-Op modes and how does she fare against bots? She does splendidly in PVE Battles, so I would recommend her for Co-Op and Scenario Players. Most battleships tend to do well here and Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya is no exception. In Scenarios, she might be a bit slow, both on straight-line speed and gun traverse to respond to threats quickly, so make sure you evaluate the needs of the mission before blindly taking this ship out. She's good for applying direct firepower and tanking from one direction (and one direction only). Random Battle Grinding:This includes training captains, collecting free experience, earning credits and collecting signal flags from achievements. It's harder to recommend her here, so I'm going to give her a pass. Lemme explain why: First, she's not a big credit earner. Anything below tier VI really struggles in that department, so that's out. Two, the experience gains for a truly excellent game will struggling to exceed 1750 base experience. This in turn means lower captain training. Three, she has some pretty specific needs for a Captain that do not gel well with the current Soviet tech tree, so she's a bad trainer. The one thing she is good at is achievements. She farms High Caliber, Confederate and Dreadnought achievements like a champ. For Competitive Gaming:Competitive Gaming includes Ranked Battles and other skill-based tournaments. This also includes stat-padding. She'll pad your win rate in Random Battles if you're confident with facing higher tiered opponents. She clubs seals like no one's business on top of that. If Wargaming opens up Ranked Battles for tier V, she'd be a good choice. The mix of firepower, durability, agility and AA power are all welcome. For Collectors:If you enjoy ship history or possessing rare ships, this section is for you. I still have very fond memories of sinking the Marat in IL-2 Sturmovik. This one is a no brainer for me, but I have a history with this class of ships. Some of you might not. For Fun Factor: Bottom line: Is the ship fun to play? If you can get past her awful turret traverse, then heck yeah, she's a lot of fun. What's the Final Verdict?How would the ship rate on an Angry YouTuber scale of Garbage - Meh - Gud - Overpowered? GARBAGE - Grossly uncompetitive and badly in need of buffs.Mehbote - Average ship. Has strengths and weaknesses. Doesn't need buffs to be viable, but certainly not advantageous.Gudbote - A strong ship that has obvious competitive strengths and unique features that make it very appealing.OVERPOWERED - A ship with very clear advantages over all of its competitors and unbalancing the game with its inclusion.
  3. The following is a review of Pyotr Bagration, the tier VIII Soviet light cruiser. This ship was kindly provided to me by Wargaming for review purposes. To the best of my knowledge, the performance and statistics discussed in this review are current as of patch 0.9.4. Please be aware that the ship may change in the future. Quick Summary: A long-range Soviet cruiser with excellent ballistics. Ostensibly, she trades access to Surveillance Radar and some firepower for a Repair Party. In reality, she's just losing out on radar -- her firepower is alarmingly on par with her contemporaries. PROS Large hit point pool plus access to a Repair Party. Well protected citadel that's entirely internal -- it does not abut against the ship's hull. Excellent 18.5km range on her main battery guns with the ballistics to take advantage of it. Very good penetration on her 180mm AP shells. Improved auto-ricochet angles on her AP rounds. Excellent AA firepower. CONS Her Repair Party only queues up 10% of citadel damage instead of 33% like most other cruisers. Low theoretical DPM and poor fire setting characteristics. Horrible fire angles, especially rearward. Very slow gun traverse at 6º/s. Her flat ballistic trajectory makes using island cover more of a challenge. Her torpedoes are slow, modestly ranged and don't hit particularly hard. Awful butt wiggle and cottage cheese thighs. Her turning radius is large and her rate of turn isn't good. (Temporary) Bugged Hydroacoustic Search consumable providing the incorrect (and shorter) ranges for torpedo and ship detection. Overview Skill Floor: SIMPLE / Casual / Challenging / Difficult Skill Ceiling: Low / Moderate / HIGH / Extreme Pyotr Bargation is an incredibly forgiving cruiser to play. Her guns are easy to use, facilitating firing from the back line. Her protection scheme is more than decent. She also gets a heal to help band-aid misplays. Furthermore (and perhaps most importantly) she lacks any serious weaknesses. Thus, she isn't severely penalized in any way that would jeopardize a novice player. She's about as basic as you can get for a high-tier cruiser. Veterans will like her simply for all of the aforementioned plus they get to use and abuse some of their skills they've acquired, including when to push, what islands to use, concealment mechanics and all of the kiting they could possibly want. Her lack of team-based utility hurts her somewhat but her staying power more than makes up for it. Options Consumables Upon release, there was a bug with Pyotr Bagration's Hydroacoustic Search. She is intended to have a 3.5km torpedo detection range and a 5km ship detection range. This will be corrected upon a later patch. Her Damage Control Party is standard for a cruiser with a 5s active period, a 60s reset timer and unlimited charges. In slot two, you have the choice between two consumables. Her Defensive AA Fire consumable provides the usual bonuses of 50% extra sustained DPS and 300% extra flak damage over 40s. It comes with three charges and has an 80s reset timer. Her Hydroacoustic Search was released with a 3km torpedo and 4km ship detection range for 100s. It has a 120s reset timer and also has three charges. Finally (and perhaps most importantly) Pyotr Bagration has a Repair Party in her third slot. This heals back up to 14% of her health over 28 seconds. This queues up 50% of penetration damage, 10% of citadel damage (unlike most other cruisers) and 100% of everything else. It has an 80s reset timer and three charges base. Upgrades Pyotr Bagration deviates from other high-tier Soviet cruiser upgrades because of her lack of a Surveillance Radar. Start with Main Armaments Modification 1. Surprisingly, I prefer using Engine Room Protection over Hydroacoustic Search Modification 1 in slot two. The latter may be purchased from the Armory for 17,000. My reason for this is pretty simple -- I'm not always taking Hydroacoustic Search in this ship so I get less use from it. Still, your choice here depends on your consumable preference. I don't think Defensive AA Fire is good (especially not good enough to be worth spending coal on a questionable upgrade) even if you're using that consumable instead. Aiming System Modification 1 is still optimal in slot three. I prefer Steering Gears Modification 1 in slot four. There is a case for Propulsion System Modification 1, particularly if you make regular use of island cover (which is more of a challenge in Pyotr Bagration than other ships) or if you have a buddy providing smoke at the ranges where her gunnery is more comfortable. Concealment System Modification 1 is still optimal in slot five, but for those with a bit of dare, Steering Gears Modification 2 isn't a poor choice for helping her toss her mayonnaise-butt around. Captain Skills The big question here is whether to specialize for Inertial Fuse for HE Shells or not. Start with your tier 1 skill of choice. I prefer Priority Target, but skills like Incoming Fire Alert, Preventative Maintenance and Expert Loader (more on this later) are acceptable choices. Next up take Adrenaline Rush. At tier three, Superintendent is best to add an extra charge to your Repair Party. And you have a choice at tier 4. Here's where you need decide if you're going to take Inertial Fuse for HE Shells or specialize for fires instead. It should be your first choice if you want to go for direct damage. Whether you take it as your first pick or not, make sure to take up Concealment Expert. Those should be your first 10 to 14 skill points. After this, pick and choose skills to your preference. Some good ones include: Demolition Expert - increase her fire setting chance. Only do this if you haven't taken IFHE. Expert Marksman - Pyotr Bagration's turret traverse is hella slow. If you've got the points to spare, this is a nice one to take. Expert Loader - If you didn't take this skill on your first pass, it's not a bad skill to have. Pyotr Bagration's gunnery rewards being dynamic with ammo choices as opportunities present themselves. From there, skills get pretty situational -- pick and choose to suit your preferences. Camouflage Pyotr Bagration has two different camos. She comes with Type 10 camouflage by default and provided you've completed the right collections, you can also use the alternative colour palette. In some of the higher tier bundles, you get access to Soviet - Pyotr Bagration. These two camouflage patterns have the same bonuses and are merely cosmetic options. -3% surface detection +4% increased dispersion of enemy shells. -10% to post-battle service costs. +50% experience earned. I have to say, I really like the green, black and grey alternative palette. The original one is super bland. I'm usually a fan of over-the-top camouflage patterns. And while I admire the design for this one, it's simply not for me. Firepower Main Battery: Nine 180mm/57 guns in 3x3 turrets in an A-B-X superfiring configuration. Secondaries: Sixteen 100mm/70 guns in 8x2 turrets with a pair straddling the bridge, four straddling the rear funnel on a raised deck and the last pair mounted on the stern deck before X-turret. Torpedoes: Ten tubes in 2x5 launchers mounted between the funnels. There's a lot to go over here. Let's start with her least effective weapon systems and work our way up. Surprisingly Plentiful It should be no surprise that I'm ragging on her secondaries. Thus far, Wargaming hasn't produced a finalized cruiser with secondaries worth getting excited about. This is a shame. Pyotr Bagration has a lot of secondaries -- eight guns per side, but they're functionally useless. They're held back by not only a 5km range, but also with having only 17mm worth of HE penetration. At best they might start a fire or two in the rare situations where you're bringing said guns into a fight but Pyotr Bagration is a cruiser that belongs at a distance -- not knife fighting. Maybe in co-op battles you might start a fire or two with these weapons but given the nature the jousts in that combat mode, that's only going to last as long as it takes you to blow out their citadel with your main battery guns or slam fish down their throats. Speaking of... A weapon of desperation or Co-Op. You know, now that I think about it, these are kind of the same thing. Torpeedus "Almost functional" is how I would best describe Pyotr Bagration's torpedoes. They're weapons of desperation rather than utility. Her quintuple launchers are a credible threat to anyone coming close, but I see them more as a deterrent than anything else outside of co-op battles. Use these to force enemies to respect your zone of control around your ship. They should prevent (or punish) anyone from contesting whatever island cover you elect to use. Ambushes are possible, if largely limited to rare opportunities later on in a match given her poor concealment. The fish themselves are slow at 55kts and not particularly hard hitting either. It's necessary to land multiple hits to guarantee the destruction of a target -- even against destroyers, though even a single hit may be enough to clinch the outcome of a brawl if you've got Pyotr Bagration's guns facing the right direction. Overall, her fish are meh. 8km is too short a range to be useful, not when this ship likes to fight in the back line. Something has to go wrong before you'll get any real use out of these outside of PVE modes. Pyotr Bagration gets poor marks when it comes to her fire angles. She has to expose way too much broadside when firing forward and it's downright appalling when firing to the rear. Make sure you keep your distance or someone will swat you for flashing your sides to the enemy. No, I'm Spartacus Soviet 180mm/57 guns are infuriating. I don't mean game-play wise. In game, they're amazing. They have ridiculous levels of AP penetration, god-tier ballistics and they hit almost as hard as 203mm rounds. I'm talking from an analysis standpoint. Between Kirov, Mikoyan, Dmitri Donskoi, Tallinn and Pyotr Bagration, there are five (yes five!) distinct 180mm/57 gunnery styles with different ballistics and resultant AP performance. And don't try and give me any of that cold-witted sass: "It's not the gun, it's different shells!" You shut your hoarfrost mouth. There are two AP shells between all five ships and none of these five ships behave the same. Not a one! The only overlap is between Molotov and Dmitri Donskoi and everything else kinda spitballs their gunnery values in the general vicinity of the awesomeness of the whole. This gets even worse when you start looking beyond just ballistics and penetration as the different guns have different damage (really), dispersion values (yes, really) and auto-ricochet mechanics (yes, really-really). I could easily stomach different ranges and reload times for the sake of balance but this is just over complicating matters. This is all just a rant to say that the only thing consistent between these guns is their inconsistency. And their awesomeness. To understand what makes Pyotr Bagration's gunnery interesting, you have to understand the alternate Soviet branch of cruisers and the general weirdness of their guns. Their primary design features are: Improved AP auto-ricochet angles (50º to 65º) Short AP fuses (0.022s) Worse dispersion values. Two of these features are designed to make their AP shells more useful instead of forcing a reliance on HE shells. They are less likely to ricochet and when they do penetrate a target, they are less likely to over-penetrate even with their higher muzzle velocity. For example, an AP shell from the new ships striking a 32mm plate at 15km will need about 10m to fuse and explode where as Dmitri Donskoi's would need about 16m. This obviously may cause issues against ships with citadels buried deeper within the vessel but I wouldn't worry too much about it. For these new Soviet ships, the trade-off comes with decreased accuracy. Their dispersion values are noticeably worse over range than previous Soviet cruisers. Thus while your AP shells are more likely to do damage compared to previous 180mm armed Soviet ships, you will see fewer hits overall. So now that you've got all of that in your head, promptly forget about it. Here's why: Pyotr Bagration's AP auto-ricochet angles are further improved over the other Soviet cruisers (55º to 65º) Pyotr Bagration has the same short AP fuse (0.022s) Pyotr Bagration uses the old (better!) dispersion values. So her AP shells are better still than those on Tallinn and she hits more often. The trade off, of course, is their rate of fire -- though this is a much closer exchange than you might otherwise guess. Tallinn has a twelve gun broadside, firing 53 rounds per minute. Pyotr Bagration, with her nine guns (but a faster reload) manages a 49 rounds per minute. So Pyotr Bagration lags a half-broadside behind Tallinn for every minute of sustained fire. That's not terrible. In fact, given the other improvements, including Pyotr Bagration's improved range over Tallinn, I'd argue the premium gets the better end of this deal. It's only in HE trades where she lags a little behind and even then, she comes out the better in fire chance. The reason is the differences in their shell performance, which (of course!) are different between the 180mm armed ships. Pyotr Bagration's HE shells have a higher fire chance per shell (13% vs 11% for Tallinn) making her the better fire-starter even with the RPM disparity between the two ships. This gap widens again when you consider Pyotr Bagration's improved accuracy and range. But there's more. Pyotr Bagration's shells have a larger blast when it comes to attacking modules (a whole half meter, but still) and her shells deal about 13% more damage per hit (there's a lot of RNG involved here, but the average works out to about 13% more over the long run). So, Pyotr Bagration has better AP shells and better HE shells to boot. Pyotr Bagration is a poor fire starter, especially if you use Inertial Fuse for HE Shells. So lets' review: Pyotr Bagration has better AP shells than Tallinn. Pyotr Bagration has better HE shells than Tallinn. Pyotr Bagration is a better fire starter than Tallinn. Pyotr Bagration has more range than Tallinn. Pyotr Bagration is more accurate than Tallinn. And before you think that Tallinn's a lemon, she's a very powerful vessel. Let's not forget, the 180mm/57 guns are awesome. The drawback for these guns are two-fold and the first one doesn't matter. On paper, these ships do not appear capable of winning DPM races. But as we've gone over, the ballistics of these guns makes landing hits a triviality. Aiming over distance is a breeze. Thus any disparity in perceived rates of fire is compensated for by their ease of use granting them a larger number of hits. This gap only really materializes in the hands of truly expert players who can land hits even when firing low-velocity trebuchets off American boats. For the average player, Pyotr Bagration will improve your gunnery because of how easy it is to hit things. The other drawback is one of HE penetration. Pyotr Bagration has 30mm of base HE penetration -- this is the same value as tier VIII 152mm guns. The jump up in caliber provides no penetration benefits (boo!). For guns with a more modest rate of fire (and barrel disparity), this puts Pyotr Bagration among the lower tier of not only HE damage output but fire setting as well. If you elect to take Inertial Fuse for HE Shells to increase her penetration up to a level where she can directly damage 32mm hull sections of tier VIII+ battleships, this greatly compromises her ability to set fires such that it will be nearly impossible to tax a battleship's Damage Control Party on her own. This isn't the ship to farm fire damage in if you're electing to use this skill. At most she'll be able to reliably set single blazes and it will be rare that you double-stack them when it counts in solo-engagements. For that reason, it's important to focus fire if you've gone with this increased penetration route. Given her good AP performance, it's possible to skip out on using this skill entirely and instead rely on her great accuracy to aim for weak spots (superstructures) with her HE shells. With some minor improvements you can turn her into a respectable fire bug on part with Mogami 203mm or Atago. All of these comparisons aside, here's the big picture: Pyotr Bagration's guns are excellent. She excels from sniping from the second line with great AP penetration, shell flight times and accuracy over distance. Her poor gun traverse, fire arcs and modest damage output precludes her from trading fire at closer ranges -- it's better to keep her at a distance where her guns perform better than her adversaries. Similarly, their super-flat trajectory will make using island cover difficult, so exercising caution with the ranges at which she engages is paramount. Players have the choice of electing for direct damage with their HE shells through IFHE or they can make her a decent fire-setter by specializing in setting blazes instead. Top marks all around. Don't let her modest damage output fool you -- these guns are easy to use. That's well worth the slight dip in theoretical damage. VERDICT: Excellent guns -- use and abuse their long range performance. Everything else is irrelevant. Defense Hit Points: 42,000 Maximum Citadel Protection: 25mm bow + 180mm transverse bulkhead or a 152mm belt + 40mm citadel wall. Structural Armour: 25mm bow & stern, 25mm upper hull, 27mm deck amidships, 13mm superstructure. Torpedo Damage Reduction: 16% Pyotr Bagration holds the reputation for being one of the toughest cruisers at tier VIII. Generally, this is earned by the trifecta of having access to a Repair Party, having good citadel protection and trollish external armour plating, though in extreme cases, just having the latter-most is sufficient. However, I'd argue that Pyotr Bagration only accomplishes two out of these three points (and missed the key one). Thusly she sits further behind everyone's favourite chubby little sister, Prinz Eugen, who ticks all three boxes. Let's start things off by looking at Pyotr Bagration's health pool and heals: Pyotr Bagration's potential health is very respectable, but mostly grace of having access to heals when most others do without. With 42,000 health, Pyotr Bagration's base hit points are decent but rather pedestrian at tier VIII. She sits behind a list of other ships including Prinz Eugen & Tallinn (45,000hp), Admiral Hipper & Albermarle (43,800hp), Amalfi (42,800hp), Mainz & Cheshire (42,500hp) and finally Baltimore (42,400hp). So the only thing that's going to make her stand out is access to her Repair Party. Now having heals at tier VIII is top shelf for a cruiser as so many have to go without. This is especially important when facing tier IX and X opponents where everyone gets a heal and those without are a full step behind. However, when you line up the quality of the Repair Party consumables, you'll discover that Pyotr Bagration ended up with the worst of the lot. I wonder what the logic was behind this exception? My first instinct when I saw this was to assume that this was a bug (akin to the one that afflicted her Hydroacoustic Search ranges upon release). However, my contacts at Wargaming confirmed for me that in this case, the values are correct. Pyotr Bagration just has a crappy Repair Party compared to other cruisers. Oh well. Gift horses and what not. I don't feel this matters a whole lot and it's not really a strike against her. There are too many tier VIII cruisers dying (literally) for access to a heal. This goes double when you take into account how good her citadel protection actually is. There are three primary strengths to Pyotr Bagration's citadel protection: The thickness of her armour. Its immunity to overmatch mechanics. It's entirely internal with none of her citadel abutting against the exterior of the hull. In terms of raw armour thickness protecting her machine spaces, Pyotr Bagration is way up there. For hits striking a cruiser's broadside, she has the thickest armour protection of the tier VIII cruisers at a combined total of 192mm (152mm belt + 40mm citadel wall) keeping shells out of her machine spaces. Her next competitors include Wichita, Albemarle and Cheshire with a flat slab of 152mm belt armour (which doubles as their citadel wall) and the layered composition of Prinz Eugen's 147mm between (27mm anti-torpedo protection, 80mm belt and 40mm turtleback). Pyotr Bagration's advantage here is that she puts a thick piece of metal on the exterior, giving her the best chance to shatter (and ricochet) smaller caliber shells before they even enter the ship -- preventing damage entirely. This keeps her safe(r) from citadel attempts from destroyer-caliber weapons and those of some light cruisers as well, but again only at a distance. At extreme ranges where Pyotr Bagration likes to fight, this can even foil some 203mm AP shells, though this is chancing matters. Even if a shell does penetrate her, the thickness of her citadel's armour prevents overmatching, even from the largest caliber AP shells out there. Her multi-layered citadel defense allows her to "double dip" with ricochet mechanics -- if not quite angled perfectly, shells that pass the first ricochet check and punch through her belt have to make another before getting a chance to hammer through her 40mm citadel wall. This alone helps reduce the number of citadel hits, greatly adding to her longevity. Similarly, shells aimed high will skip off the roof of her citadel. Having her machine spaces and magazine entirely internal prevents Pyotr Bagration from taking any citadel hits from HE bomb and shell attacks. It can even provide an internal volume in which AP shells can fuse and detonate before reaching her citadel. The image on the left shows Pyotr Bagration's citadel dimensions and armour layout. The one on the right shows how the ship's belt armour and hull encompasses the entirely internal citadel. That gap can cause all sorts of weird penetration mechanics to occur, such as internal ricochets, providing a space for short-fuse shells to explode in, etc. The effect here is to reduce the frequency of citadel hits this ship receives, especially from smaller caliber AP shells. It's Pyotr Bagration's structural armour where I find she's lacking. She's a light cruiser and conforms to light cruiser norms barring her extended waterline belt. Thus, her structural armour doesn't exceed 25mm with the exception of her amidships deck. 27mm worth of structural armour is an important threshold since the Inertial Fuse for HE Shell rework. First of all, it provides HE shell immunity from destroyers of 127mm caliber guns or smaller (barring those with weird HE penetration such as the ducky 100mm) -- even with IFHE they can't get enough penetration to directly damage those hull sections. This provides protection against secondary fire too, such as those found on Massachusetts. But most importantly, 27mm hull sections give the ship immunity from overmatch mechanics from 381mm AP shells. It's a shame she has to do without. 27mm structural plate isn't an automatic "I win" attribute. Pyotr Bagration isn't crippled without it (though you definitely feel it more in Co-Op). It simply increases the ship's survivability against particular opponents and specific situations (which are, again, prevalent in Co-Op). Her lack of this armour cements for me her role as a back-line support ship. She belongs in the rear where her guns and her armour layout maximizes her performance for little risk. Her 40mm icebreaker bow is worth mentioning. While it will soak up the occasional AP and HE shell tossed at her waterline, I find it rather troll to be honest. Relying upon it will only get your face stoved in by overmatching battleship-caliber shells as there's still lots of 25mm sections to punch through. However, there's no arguing that it will further reduce the number of citadel hits she takes. Proof positive that Wargaming considers Pyotr Bagration a light cruiser. Her protection scheme conforms to light cruiser norms. Summary: She has a heal. Most tier VIII cruisers don't. Her citadel protection is good. It won't save you if you give up your broadside though. Her structural armour is squishy. She's very vulnerable to HE shells. VERDICT: Pyotr Bagration is easily one of the best protected cruisers at tier VIII. That doesn't make her invincible or even tanky for that matter, but she can survive for quite a while provided you play to her strengths. Agility Top Speed: 34.5kts Turning Radius: 890m Rudder Shift Time: 10.6s 4/4 Engine Speed Rate of Turn: 4.8º/s There's only two good things about Pyotr Bagration's agility. Her guns have a 6º/s rotation rate. She's very long ranged. You'll note that neither of these things relate to how agile the ship is itself. That's because she isn't agile. Her handling comes from the same rancid mayonnaise jar as the other Soviet agility. Sure, it wiggles and jiggles when you shake it but it's sixteen months past the expiry date. Just trying to handle it is asking for an oily disaster as it goes everywhere but where it belongs. The best thing about her is her speed -- she goes in a straight line reasonably quick (just like that watery film on the top of your expired mayonnaise when you accidentally tip it over) but that's not remarkable. As terrible as Pyotr Bagration's rotation rate is, at least she can't out turn her turrets. It's a horrible bit of consolation but there it is. Bad handling is bad handling, but that doesn't hold Pyotr Bagration back because it doesn't matter. All she really needs from her agility is to be able to maintain distance in order to stay alive. That far out, even the lack of Soviet handling is enough to kite and dodge effectively. The ol' mayonnaise zone. VERDICT: Pretty bad, but irrelevant other than her straight-line speed. Anti-Aircraft Defense Flak Bursts: 8 explosions for 1,400 damage per blast Long Ranged (up to 5.8km): 189dps at 90% accuracy Medium Ranged (up to 3.5km): 158dps at 90% accuracy Short Ranged (up to 2.0km): 70dps at 85% accuracy Pyotr Bagration has excellent AA firepower for a tier VIII cruiser. Given the distances at which she likes to fight, it's actually reasonable to without Hydroacoustic Search and use Defensive AA Fire instead. With so much of her damage output concentrated in her long-range batteries and a heavy amount of flak, she makes an excellent AA escort cruiser -- at least in so far as this role can still be said to be viable in the current meta. I think it's safer to say that you're not hurting your team's chances by spending a consumable to help bruise attack squadrons, though I wouldn't go so far as to encourage you to spend skill points or upgrades that way. Frankly, I look at this as a happy coincidence rather than something worth getting excited over. It's nice that Pyotr Bagration's penchant for shooting from the second line will keep her reasonably close to battleships and thus allow her to passively support them with her AA power too. With a lot of her AA power concentrated in her long-range batteries, Pyotr Bagration is a very good ship for providing support AA to allies. VERDICT: Pretty darned good. I wish that meant something. Refrigerator Base/Minimum Surface Detection: 14km / 11km Base/Minimum Air Detection Range: 8.23km/6.67km Detection Range When Firing in Smoke: 7.8km Main Battery Firing Range: 18.48km Pyotr Bagration's vision control is ... well, it's not good. But, like her agility, the failures here are largely irrelevant. Bugs with her Hydroacoustic Search aside, this isn't a ship that belongs up on the front lines anyway (outside of co-op -- everything brawls in co-op). So having a less-than-stellar surface or aerial detection isn't the end of the world. Pyotr Bagration's main battery performance and her protection scheme both thrive on this ship being in the second line, sniping from the rear. This said, I don't think Pyotr Bagration should go without Concealment System Modification 1 -- the additional dispersion gained from this upgrade in combination with the gains to her stealth are too beneficial to set aside. But it might be possible to go without the Concealment Expert commander skill if points are tight. Still, there is obvious benefit to padding these flagging numbers if you can. Being able to go dark is paramount for safety in open-water kiting. What is worth discussing is how little she brings to the table in terms of vision control for her team. Pyotr Bagration lacks Surveillance Radar, a staple of high-tier Soviet cruisers. Unlike Mikhail Kutuzov who also goes without, she doesn't bring a Smoke Generator either. She cannot even be relied upon to have access to a Hydroacoustic Search (nor ever be in a position where using one is advantageous given her gunnery needs). Fighting from so far back or behind cover, she's not likely to be doing her own spotting either. This is an entirely selfish ship in terms of team play -- best designed for solo-actions or relying upon team play to facilitate her damage output. The best she can hope to provide for her team are support AA-fire, good damage output and maybe distracting enemies with her kiting antics. VERDICT: Not great but this isn't a horrible drawback thanks to her protection scheme and gunnery. She's entirely dependent on her team for spotting. Final Evaluation Pyotr Bagration is a monster. She's a boring monster, but she's a monster none the less. I consider her to easily be more powerful than Ochakov, the other tier VIII premium released at the same time. However, I found Ochakov's game play to be much more rewarding, if exceedingly volatile. Pyotr Bagration is the much safer choice, promising reliable steady damage, good survivability and ... well, not much else, if I'm terribly honest. There's nothing wrong with that per se. There is a lot of reward to be found in frustrating your opponents by staying alive, harassing them with long range fire and kiting them out of position. Pyotr Bagration has very good staying power and you can always count on her guns to hit back. While Pyotr Bagration has her flaws (poor gun handling, poor fire arcs, poor agility, no vision control) I don't see any of these as being particularly damning for this ship. On the contrary, most of these feel trivial, especially when her incredible range and ballistics band-aids over these drawbacks to the point of irrelevance. In this regard, she reminds me of Giulio Cesare -- an earlier premium that, while she had her flaws, they didn't get in the way of the ship's strengths. We all know how that ship turned out. While I'm loathe to trumpet out an 'overpowered' warning without actually seeing her performance in the hands of the masses, she's certainly piqued my interest as one to watch for the future. So yeah. Pytor Bagration. She's an incredibly safe purchase, though her game play doesn't particularly appeal for me. I think Tallinn is the more interesting ship, and she's free. So make of that what you will. Conclusion Well, this one took longer than I thought it would. There's a lot of weirdness in this ship, particularly in her armour and guns that I wanted to double and triple check to make sure I did them justice. There was also the problem of getting access to Tallinn in order to make sure my comparisons were on point and that necessitated doing some grinding to unlock her. Oh well, it's done. The next ship on the docket is Mikoyan, the tier V Soviet cruiser. I dunno how this one flew beneath my radar but I totally blanked on her coming out. I'll be doing something special for her, so stay tuned! Thanks for reading!
  4. Now that WG has reintroduced stealth radar to the game with the new Soviet cruisers, they should also address an inconsistency they created when the US cruiser radar ranges were changed to eliminate stealth radar several years ago. All US heavy cruisers' radar ranges were normalized to 10 km, while US light cruisers all received 9 km ranges (except Atlanta). The exception to that was the US tier 8 premium USS Wichita which was given the light cruiser radar because if it was given the standard US CA 10 km radar, it would have had the ability to stealth radar for 500 m (max concealment for Wichita 9.5 km). So, the Wichita was equipped with the US CL radar, yet her consumables received none of the other benefits of a US CL (e.g. you have to choose between hydro and DFAA). The Wichita is a fine ship and a good T8 CA, but in the mind of many she is lacking something to make her a compelling premium. The best way to remedy that would be to correct her flawed radar range and raise it to 10 km like every other US CA. However, if she is going to remain a up gunned, up armored light cruiser, with 9 km radar, then that should apply to all of her consumables and DFAA should be moved to a dedicated slot, giving her consumables the utility of a US light cruiser.
  5. Hello, I got Mikoyan, Bagration and Ochakov on the beggining of last week, i was able to do the 7 winning missions to get soviet tokens. (7x15, 7x30 and 7x30) Those missions arent available every week on 0.9.4? Shouldnt it be available again?
  6. Xero_Snake

    What is Poltava?

    Whilst Poltava is, in fact, the Type "B" light battleship project in design, Poltava is actually based on one of a few designs representing the Type "B" project. More specifically, Poltava is, in actuality, the Project 64 light battleship. Before Pr. 64, there was the Pr. 25 - predecessor of Pr. 64. For the light battleship project itself, Type “B” was meant to be a support for the heavier Type “A” battleship, sometimes it was considered in the same league as the battlecruiser concept – their “heavy cruiser”, for the lack of better term. From my Soviet Premium Ships wish-list thread: https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/108636-soviet-vmf-premium-collection-precolle-part-2/ Draft technical data specs & parameters (TTZ) of Project Type "B": Original TTZ of Pr. 64: From my perspective, Pr. 64 - Poltava is supposed to play like a "cruiser killer"-type battlecruiser like the French Dunkerque & the German Scharnhorst. Overall performances should be, more or less, comparable to those two aforementioned "oddball" BBs. Otherwise, play like how you played battecruiser Izmail, as your closest comparison you can come across with. Don't expect Poltava to be like of Sinop on the same tier, but at least she represents a more modern & improved version of Izmail on contemporary superfiring A-B-X BB design, while being on the same league as Scharnhorst.
  7. This is a review of Mikoyan, the tier V Soviet light cruiser. She was provided to me by Wargaming for review purposes at no cost to me. To the best of my knowledge, the statistics discussed in this review are current as of patch 0.9.4. Please be aware that her performance may change in the future. Hullo, everyone! This review is going to be a little bit different than my other reviews -- mostly because I've assigned myself an artificial time limit. I'm not allowed working past 24 hours total on this article (And I almost made it too. - Future Mouse). This doesn't include play test games but those were similarly cut short from my usual 30 or so to a mere dozen Random Battles and about the same in Co-Op. My reasons for doing this? I'm trying to get another review out before the end of May and to not go nucking futs working on what is ostensibly a free ship. That Mikoyan can be purchased directly to short-cut the event necessitates that she gets a review but I'm not killing myself over this one. Thanks for your understanding! And nuts to you if you don't get it! Quick Summary: A soft and squishy fast-cruiser with a small battery of Soviet 180mm rail-guns. PROS Belt is so thin that it doesn't fuse battleship caliber AP shells that strike her broadside-on. Excellent range and the ballistics to take advantage of it. Great rearward firing angles -- perfect for kiting. High AP penetration. Good HE penetration for a tier V cruiser. Good top speed of 35.5 knots. CONS Tiny 21,000 hit point pool. Wonky dispersion for a cruiser. Very little citadel protection which is vulnerable to larger caliber HE shells. Slow rate of fire. & poor fire setting characteristics. Very sluggish gun handling with poor forward-fire angles. Torpedoes are painfully short ranged. Large turning circle radius and horrible handling. Overview Skill Floor: Simple / CASUAL / Challenging / Difficult Skill Ceiling: Low / MODERATE / High / Extreme Mikoyan is pretty basic. I'd have given her a "simple" skill floor evaluation if she was a little more forgiving when it came to "accidentally pushing". As it is, her gun handling and agility holds that back so I can't quite give her that rating. As it is, though, a novice player can do reasonably well in this ship by parking in the back line and just launching shells down range. For experts, Mikoyan is pretty surprising with her potential. Her thin belt armour is a double edged sword that can allow you to pull off some pretty troll shot baiting. If she was more agile, this could almost be clever but she doesn't have the wiggle needed to pull it off, sadly. Kiting works well, though the claustrophobic maps upon which she plays makes this difficult. You've got your work cut out for you -- carrying with Mikoyan is really difficult. Options Not much to go over here. Tier V cruisers aren't especially outlandish. Consumables Her Damage Control Party is standard for a tier V cruiser, with unlimited charges, an active period of 5s and a 60s reset timer. Her Hydroacoustic Search also conforms to tier V cruiser norms. She starts with three charges and a 100s active period. It detects torpedoes at 3km and ships at 4km. Finally, her Spotter Aircraft has four charges and provides the usual 20% range increase (bringing her up to 19.44km) for 100s. It has a 240s reset timer. Upgrades Start with Main Armaments Modification 1. In slot two, Engine Room Protection is optimal. This may surprise you given that she can take Hydroacoustic Search Modification 1 for for 17,000 from the Armory, but she doesn't do well up close so you're better off protecting her machine spaces and steering gears. If you intend to use the commander skill Last Stand then you can grab the Hydroacoustic Search upgrade instead. And to no one's surprise, Aiming Systems Modification 1 is still optimal in slot three. Captain Skills Don't take Inertial Fuse for HE Shells on this ship. Never ever ever. A Soviet destroyer build is pretty close to ideal here, again so long as you avoid IFHE. Start with Priority Target. Depending upon your personal level of situational awareness, you can swap this out for Incoming Fire Alert, Preventative Maintenance or Expert Loader. More on this last skill in a bit. Take Last Stand at tier two. Loud noises a whole grid square over tend to break Mikoyan's engine and rudder. You have your pick of skills at tier three. None of them are particularly good for Mikoyan. I went with Demolition Expert as a default measure, but you could simply go with Survivability Expert for the extra 1,750hp. Finally take Concealment Expert as your last skill. There aren't a whole lot of high-tier skills that otherwise benefit this ship overmuch. If you didn't take it for your first skill, then Expert Loader is definitely worth picking up. Grab Adrenaline Rush and Expert Marksman too. You may as well grab Radio Location as your last skill, but hunting destroyers isn't a comfortable role for this ship. Instead you may want to pick skills that at least make her decent as an alternative captain for some other ship. Camouflage Mikoyan has Type 9 Camouflage. It provides the following benefits: -3% surface detection +4% increased dispersion of enemy shells. -10% to post-battle service costs. +50% experience earned. Mikoyan's default camo scheme. I much prefer the alternative palette which you can unlock via collections. Firepower Main Battery: 3x2 180mm guns in an A-B-X superfiring configuration. Torpedoes: 2x3 launchers with one launcher per side mounted between the two funnels. Mikoyan's Fish Let's start with her torpedoes. They're largely forgettable due to their short, 4km range. This limits them to weapons of ambush and desperation -- and these tend to be linked. This ship dies a horrible death in close-quarters brawls. Her protection scheme is entirely ill-suited to fighting up close and the only time you're ever going to use her torpedoes are when you or your opponent has screwed up horribly. Those two are not mutually exclusive either. Outside of co-op, it's best to forget these even exist. Mikoyan's Guns I could go on forever and a day here, but I'll let the graphics do the talking for the most part. Here's what you need to know: Mikoyan is armed with six of the new Soviet 180mm guns. These have excellent ballistics, god-tier AP penetration across all distances, improved auto-ricochet mechanics and are stupidly-long ranged. That's the good news. The bad news is that they have horrible gun handling, poor HE performance and trollish dispersion. These are weapons designed for camping the second line, using AP shells whenever possible (which is more often than not) and praying to RNGeebus for dispersion to be kind. These are NOT weapons for spamming HE. They are very poor fire starters and their sustained damage output with HE shells is just pathetic. Also, don't bring these things into a brawl -- their gun handling is atrocious, to say nothing about their sustained damage output or burst potential with only six rifles. Mikoyan's HE damage output is pretty terrible but her AP performance is good despite her only having six guns and a slow reload. Keep in mind that her AP shells are further strengthened by truly excellent penetration values that easily exceed the 203mm performance of most other ships. Seriously, Mikoyan can citadel battleships at point blank range. Don't try it, though. You'll die. Mikoyan also has improved auto-ricochet angles meaning her shells will bite in more frequently into ships that are trying to deflect your shots. Please be aware that at the time of publishing, Kotovsky has not yet been released and her performance may change in the future. This deficit of HE performance carries over into Mikoyan's fire-setting potential. It's pretty bad. Thankfully, she doesn't need to touch IFHE. Mikoyan has 30mm of HE penetration -- more than enough to directly damage the extremities of any ship within her matchmaking spread. So there's your booby prize. Please be aware that at the time of publishing, Kotovsky has not yet been released and her performance may change in the future. The strangest dichotomy of the new Soviet cruisers (Mikoyan included) is that the ship is designed to perform best at long range due to the combination of poor gun-handling, poor agility and the excellent ballistics and penetration. Simply put, staying further back plays up to the strengths of these Soviet railguns while simultaneously hamstringing the return fire of the enemy and downplaying her own weaknesses. Yet there's a monkey-wrench in the works: As good as Mikoyan's 180mm guns should be, their dispersion keeps them from echoing the performance of ships like Molotov and Pyotr Bagration. Mikoyan's dispersion is trollish. It's not Roma-levels, mind you, but having shots land short or long is very VERY commonplace at ranges of 15km or more. I can't count the number of times I thought I had an enemy cruiser dead to rights -- a perfect broadside where I knew my AP penetration was more than sufficient to end them only to have no hits land. I wouldn't go so far as to say that this sort of thing happens constantly -- but it does happen often enough to be a marked flaw of this ship. It injects a big dose of unreliability into weapons that would otherwise be the best at their tier. 180 AP shells locked on and fired at a stationary Fuso-bot that had no camouflage. Mikoyan was using Aiming Systems Modification 1. Shots are coming in from the right -- Fuso is effectively bow-tanking the incoming fire. Imagine firing this at the broadside of a cruiser -- a lot of shells are going to fall short or fly long. I suppose the best thing that could be said about Mikoyan's gun performance is that they up-tier very well. Her ridiculously long range (pushing almost 20km with her Spotting Aircraft deployed) and effectiveness at this range means that she always has a role no matter what her opponents are. This is good news given how often tier V ships get pooped on in the Matchmaking. Seriously, in my dozen Random Battle playtesting, not once was I top tier. That could have been just a bad run of RNGeebus given how few games that is, but still. Overall, these are effective weapons so long as you can keep your ship in the game. That's what we like to call foreshadowing, boys and girls. Mikoyan's rearward fire angles on her guns are phenomenal. Firing forward, they leave her open to taking citadel hits in return. Her gun rotation is also on the poor side, with only an 8º/s rotation rate. VERDICT: Gun handling and dispersion nerf what are otherwise god-tier guns. Having only six of them holds her back too. Outside of PVE modes, you have to largely forget she has torpedoes. Durability Hit Points: 21,000 Maximum Citadel Protection: 13mm bow + 35mm transverse bulkhead or just a 35mm belt. Structural Armour: 13mm bow & stern, 16mm upper hull, 16mm deck amidships, 10mm superstructure. Torpedo Damage Reduction: None There's a lot to unpack here but I'll try and be brief. First, Mikoyan doesn't have a lot of health. And that's a bit of an understatement. Hawkins has more than 50% more health than Mikoyan and that's even before you account for the British cruiser's Repair Party consumable. Line up all of the tier V cruisers and you'll see a very marked gap in health pools from the top ships and those at the bottom. And Mikoyan sits even lower than that. So yeah, that's not good. So many cute little low-tier cruisers. Look at all of the tiny hit point pools. It would be a shame if someone were to carpet-bomb their 13mm and 16mm decks. Please be aware that at the time of publishing, Kotovsky has not yet been released and her performance may change in the future. This is made worse by her armour. It's standard tier V light-cruiser fare -- which is to say it provides almost no immunity or overmatch protection. Her 13mm bows can be overmatched by AP shells as small in caliber as 186mm -- so from Hawkins' 190mm guns to the 203mm guns on Genova, Furutaka and Exeter, she has to be careful. Similarly, she has almost no mitigation against HE shells being thrown about -- not even her belt is entirely proof there. Much ado is made about Mikoyan's citadel protection. Her 35mm belt is downright meme-worthy. Mikoyan can take HE citadel hits from whole slew of medium and large caliber HE shells. German 150mm guns (Konigsberg, Nurnberg, Makarov and the secondaries off of ships like Scharnhorst) are particularly frightening due to their high rate of fire, but HE shells from any battleship will similarly make her life hilariously short. You also have to worry about the 1/4 HE pen off of German and British heavy cruisers similarly making her life miserable. Coupled with this, her thin belt provides scarcely better than destroyer-levels of protection for her magazines and machine spaces. Near misses from HE explosions will frequently knock out her engines, to say nothing of direct hits. Last Stand is a solid investment to keep her from being caught dead in the water and then made dead in fact. Still, it's not all doom and gloom. Mikoyan's 35mm belt is too thin to arm any battleship caliber AP shells. It's only by striking the belt at an angle -- typically entering auto-ricochet territory -- that battleships have any chance of fusing their shells. There are three catches of course. Shells hitting the water. If the shells hit the water before the ship, they'll fuse beforehand and cause all sorts of unpleasantness. Overmatching down the length of the ship. If the shell penetrates the ship from the bow or stern, they'll have passed through more than enough steel to arm. EVERY battleship can overmatch Mikoyan's bow and stern. HE Shells. Just when you think you've got your auto-ricochet angles all figured out, they'll load the HE and blow you up anyway. Honestly, it's not battleships Mikoyan really has to worry about. It's other cruisers and destroyers -- which brings up an important topic: Do not brawl with this ship. I say again: DO NOT ATTEMPT TO BRAWL USING THIS SHIP. Nothing will end your matches faster than thinking "Hey, this looks like a pretty good time to push in!" Don't do it. Resist the urge. Bad things will happen. That destroyer hasn't over-extended. You can't push that smoke screen. Don't attempt to ambush that battleship with torpedoes using that island. You're not going to end that beached cruiser quickly. "But Mouse, when I did it, everything went fine!" Shut up. You got lucky. Maybe the word hasn't been spread far and wide yet, but it will -- mark me, it will. Mikoyan is a victim waiting to happen and her executioners are anyone with a sub-10 second reload. For crying out loud, British 120mm/45 guns -- you know, those ones with the floaty, pissing-in-the-wind ballistics? THOSE can citadel Mikoyan 10km. They don't even have the ballistics to hit the ground at that range (look-out, moon!) and they're capable of punching into her machine spaces. Coupled with her poor DPM, agility (spoilers) and gun handling, bringing her carcass into close range is just serving herself up for the butcher. Your only defense is to keep the range up where their guns suck and yours aren't compromised. Mikoyan's durability is garbage. The only good thing about it is trolling battleships like a Chad-unicum by offering them up broadsides and watching them overpen. Of course if you think that will actually work, I'll remind you that you have even odds that the battleships you'll be facing haven't figured out that they're not supposed to spam HE. Ignoring her belt armour (I know, it's hard), Mikoyan's structural armour is super average (squishy). The geometry of her citadel's butt is more interesting than the flat surface at the front. There too, it's 35mm thick for the upper portion (kinda like a wrap-around belt) with a 6mm lower portion. But her butt (heh) has a weird little step with a 50mm shelf. This 50mm shelf can't be overmatched, so there's some largely irrelevant good news. VERDICT: Yer gunna die. Lul. Agility Top Speed: 35.5 knots Turning Radius: 830m Rudder Shift Time: 5.9s 4/4 Speed Rate of Turn: 5.3º/s She's fast but she turns like butts. Combined with her sluggish turret traverse, this is bad. The disparity between good and bad manoevrability at higher tiers is far more pronounced than down here at tier V, however the maps are a lot more claustrophobic at lower tiers so you'll feel Mikoyan's rancid-mayo handling more. There's not much more to say than that. You're an idiot if you bring her into a brawl and hope for good things to happen. I was an idiot often during play testing. Mikoyan always made sure I felt like one for thinking she had any kind of wiggle that might save me. Mikoyan's agility is "the best of the worst" among the tier V cruisers. Furutaka looks agile by comparison. For those unaware, a lot of the in-port turning radius values are a lie. Ship agility is complicated. Please be aware that at the time of publishing, Kotovsky has not yet been released and her performance may change in the future. VERDICT: Anti-Aircraft Defense Flak Bursts: 1 explosions for 910 damage per blast at 3.5km to 4km. Long Ranged (up to 4.0km): 21dps at 90% accuracy Medium Ranged (up to 3.2km): 91dps at 90% accuracy Short Ranged (up to 1.5km): 46dps at 85% accuracy If you were hoping for a colourful, confusing graphic here, I'm sorry to disappoint. It would take too long to say: "all tier V cruisers have crappy AA defense". It's saying something when the best protected cruisers from air-power at this tier are all of those who can call on smoke (Emerald, Exeter and Montecuccoli). Sustained DPS never gets high enough to truly threaten carriers. Range is generally lacking too. Short of having smoke, a Catapult Fighter is the best deterrent you could hope for at this tier. So, lacking smoke and a fighter, you can pretty much tell that Mikoyan is screwed. And not in the fun way. Even if tier V cruisers had AA levels that could be sufficient to seeing to their own defense (or at least frustrating carriers), Mikoyan is in the bottom half (and almost the bottom third) for AA performance at this tier anyway. Mikoyan is boned. Again, not in the fun way. VERDICT: Irrelevant. Refrigerator Base/Minimum Surface Detection: 11.98km / 10.46km Base/Minimum Air Detection Range: 6.38km/5.74km Detection Range When Firing in Smoke: 6.25km Main Battery Firing Range: 16.2km / 19.44km with Spotting Aircraft active Mikoyan's surface detection is pretty average for a tier V cruiser -- being neither bad nor good. I'd argue that she benefits from this "average" concealment more than many other ships, if only grace of her predilection for firing from the second line. It doesn't hurt that she's painfully allergic to pushing. This is a ship where you want to keep your opponents at a minimum of 12km range -- preferably more if they're trying to shoot back. That way she can silence her guns and easily drop back into concealment to avoid the worst of their return fire. To this end, her Hydroacoustic Search kind of goes to waste. Short of being actively hunted by a Japanese lolibote or in an end-game scenario where you can charge an isolated destroyer hiding in smoke, there's really little need to make use of it. It's a shame really, but this just compounds upon the difficulties this ship has with performing up close. Oh well. VERDICT: Good enough, I guess. Final Evaluation Well, at least she's free. Lemme preface this: I like lower tiered ships. I really do. However, the Matchmaking tier V ships end up facing has definitely curbed that enthusiasm. Tier V ships get the worst luck when it comes to Matchmaking. They either face a glut of carriers when top tier or they end up being the little fish against higher tiered boats. This makes evaluating them difficult -- they're forever in a disadvantageous situation where it's rare to see them at their best. I think it's points in Mikoyan's favour that at least she deals with being up-tiered about as well as you could hope. Still, I feel her design is a poor one for the tier she's placed in. This is a ship with long legs and long range that really wants some room. She is a high-tier ship design -- built for kiting. That's not something that works especially well in lower tiers. The maps down here feel island congested and claustrophobic. Mikoyan can't flex the way she needs to in order to be at her best. Even still, when she finds herself on maps with tier VII ships, her guns are a bit of a let down. Her dispersion really surprised me -- especially after having recently spent so much time with Ochakov and Pyotr Bagration. Her gunnery simply felt "off". This is entirely by design, though it's not a design i find particularly rewarding. I can stomach it more with my battleships for the promise of massive alpha strikes. For a ship that struggles to compete in the DPM races like Mikoyan, it just feels like I'm being cheated when my perfectly lined up shots stray because of RNGeebus (love you, big guy -- mad respect, but can you just chill?). When Mikoyan's guns work, they work beautifully. There's just a dash of inconsistency that makes me wary every time I pull the trigger. Most times they behave. Most times. I'll be damned if my brain doesn't remind me of the occasional failure like it was a constant oppression though. On the whole, I give Mikoyan failing marks. I don't like her. I won't be playing her. If I want this kind of game play, I'll dust off Molotov. I'm glad you can earn Mikoyan for free -- to me, she's not worth the coin needed to buy her. Conclusion I really tried to limit myself with how much time I was going to spend on this review. May has been hella-busy. This is my fifth review published this month behind Cheshire, Orkan, Ochakov and Pyotr Bagration. I wish I could say playing these ships was fun. I really only enjoyed Ochakov and even then, she's not likely to be a ship that I dust off for her own sake. Ugh. This month has felt like a whole lot of work. I cut corners here where I could to expedite getting this one out. I can't say I'm happy with the results, though I am glad to get this out in a timely manner. I won't have the luxury of half-assing the next three reviews coming up, one of which is my 150th. The big one-five-oh should line up with Odin's release if I understand the timing correctly. I think that's reasonably auspicious right there. I've been floating the idea of doing an "open book" review -- showing my process as I go, making rough drafts and notes available as I piece it together in my usual methodology. It's one thing to say that a lot of work goes into these reviews. I think it would be eye opening for some to see everything that doesn't end up in the final review. Lemme know if you think this is something you'd enjoy seeing. It will involve some extra work, but I think it's worthwhile if there's enough interest. For now, I need a break. There's a lot of work still to be done with the submarines on the live server, so I'm going to have to try those out. And that's not discounting the next ships to evaluate which are coming up shortly. I need to fast recharge my batteries.
  8. Hello, I was in my armory and it says "you already have this bundle" for the new soviet bundle. I dont have the bundle or any of the ships, could someone please explain this issue?
  9. The following is a review of Smolensk, the tier X premium Soviet light cruiser kindly provided to me by Wargaming. Please be aware that though this represents the release version of the ship, her statistics may change in the future. To the best of my knowledge, these stats are accurate as of patch 0.8.8. Someone thought it would be a good idea to release a tier X version of USS Flint but with Soviet flavour-crystals. Players in the know are disinclined to drink the red Kool-aid -- and with good reason. If you're hoping that I was going to feed the drama llama and tell you everything is fine with Smolensk, I'm sorry to disappoint. Smolensk is an unapologetically powerful premium and continues the 2019 Stalinium trend. I should call Smolensk by her proper appellation: a "Reward Ship". This distinction is hella-important. Reward ships can still be directly nerfed after-release. Barring extraordinary circumstances, a premium cannot. This is, of course, adding to the feelings of frustration within certain circles of the community -- knowing that Wargaming could apply corrections to Smolensk but hasn't. I'm personally not getting my hopes up. So let's take a look at this calamity and why Smolensk has so many people sipping Tang. PROS Troll armour scheme, with 30mm hull amidships, 50mm citadel roof and a thin armoured belt which prompts frequent AP ricochets and over-penetrations. Armed with sixteen (!) rapid-fire Soviet 130mm guns that upgrade well with commander skills. Has the ability to make players give up on life and/or rage quit simply by bringing them under fire. Speaking of fire, she's good at setting it. Good accuracy and shell ballistics for a light cruiser. Downright trollish protection scheme. Excellent concealment. It's so good that she can hide her over-performance from spreadsheets. Fast and agile. Good anti-aircraft firepower. Has access to a Smoke Generator. CONS Super squishy with a tiny hit point pool, pathetic armour and zero anti-torpedo protection. Speaking of squish, her citadel is exposed over the waterline and just begging to be groped by AP shells. When things go wrong, they go wrong quickly. Short ranged guns and torpedoes. But you can fix the former and you don't necessarily need the latter (nice as they are to have). Poor HE and AP penetration for a tier X cruiser (not that this matters, really, but someone would complain if I didn't put it here). It's Soviet, so it's not allowed to be good. Smolensk is an HE spamming, torpedo-armed light-cruiser with smoke. In theory, she's soft and fragile. In theory. In reality, she's hard to spot, she's hard to hit, and when you do hit her, you can't guarantee good damage numbers. The Details You Need to Know There are four main elements you need to know about Smolensk. Weapons Main Battery: Sixteen 130mm/57 guns in 4x4 turrets in an A-B-X-Y superfiring configuration. Torpedoes: Ten torpedo tubes in 2x5 launchers with one mounted on each side in wing mounts straddling the rear funnel. Smolensk has destroyer-caliber guns. This presents a few problems but, as we'll see, these are problems that are largely irrelevant. These imagined difficulties are: Smolensk is short ranged. She only has a modest fire-chance per shell compared to 152mm+ armed cruisers. She has low damage per shell compared to 152mm+ armed cruisers. Her AP penetration and HE penetration are poor. Smolensk starts with a mere 13.8km reach. This is near-suicidal range for a cruiser at tier X, but Smolensk has two ready fixes. Between the Gun Fire Control System Modification 2 upgrade and the Advanced Fire Training commander skill, Smolensk's range can be modified to 16km or 16.6km respectively. The choice between these two options lets players pick one of the two without taxing their ability to boost Smolensk's DPM or set fires. Combine the two (often at the expense of reload) and you have a reach of 19.2km. These options more than undermine any deficiencies in the reach of her guns. Furthermore, unlike some other destroyer-caliber armed cruisers, Smolensk's guns are comfortable to use up to ranges of 15km and have better ballistics than British or American 152mm. Shell flight times estimations (in seconds) of most of the tier X cruisers. These were taken from the in-game client with guns trained broadside. Smolensk's 130mm guns have shell flight times similar to Des Moines and Salem at very long ranges -- much improved over the more floaty ballistics of American and British 152mm guns. At ranges less than 10km, they're more akin to Henri IV's 240mm guns. Speaking of damage output and setting fires: It's true that Smolensk's AP and HE shells are found wanting in terms of raw damage output and fire chance compared to the 152mm, 203mm and 240mm guns of her competitors. However, the sheer volume of fire and her improved accuracy more than make up for any perceived deficit here. Furthermore, Smolensk can directly increase her rate of fire with Basic Fire Training -- something the other cruisers at tier X cannot, stacking this on top of Main Battery Modification 3. In addition, she takes less fire-chance penalty for using the Inertial Fuse for HE Shells skill than her contemporaries. This just leaves the issue of penetration, and this isn't one that can be corrected. Even with Inertial Fuse for HE Shells, Smolensk is incapable of damaging areas of armour thicker than 27mm with her high-explosive rounds. Her AP shells are similarly anemic with less than 100mm of penetration at ranges greater than 8km. However, her low penetration is largely a non-issue. Smolensk is more than capable of aiming for weak spots, and when you're tossing out that many shells, you're bound to hit something squishy sooner or later. Her AP shells are still able to chew through mouthfuls of an enemy ship's hit points if they present their broadside. She need merely aim at their softer hull sections like the bow, stern or upper hull. And for those tougher nuts out there, her fire setting will burn them to the waterline before long. Whatever perceived flaws Smolensk has with her guns are laughable, easily corrected if they were something that needed correcting in the first place. The sheer volume of fire her sixteen guns put out is nightmarish -- driving off and intimidating opponents. Softer hulled ships vanish in just a few seconds, allowing even this soft-skinned ship to out-trade select opponents. And if that weren't enough, she has decent torpedoes to stove the face in of anyone that comes sniffing near her smoke screens. These are just the stock DPM values. This is before the influence of captain skills, before upgrades, before consumables and before special upgrades. This also doesn't account for penetration or accuracy or what have you. I could have made this graph stupidly complicated with seventeen different combinations of applied bonuses and caveats to damage output but I think this already illustrates all it needs to: Smolensk spits out a lot of shells. Don't be in their way. There is no way I didn't screw something up here or leave something off. But, you know what? I'ma roll with it. You can increase Smolensk's fire chance even further by using the Adrenaline Rush commander skill and take some damage, but I think covering 34 different combinations is plenty, thank you very much. Keep in mind that these are base fire-per-minute values, not counting enemy fire resistance. In practice, the actual value will be about 40% to 50% of what's listed here. Oh no, Smolensk might "only" be able to start one fire every other salvo. What a joke. Smolensk doesn't miss -- only players do. (180 shells fired at 15km locked onto a stationary enemy Fuso without camo. Smolensk was equipped with Aiming System Modification 1). If you're paying attention, then with that optimal fire build I just illustrated above, you should be starting a fire almost every 5 to 6 seconds. Consumables Speaking of smoke screens, there are two consumables here worth noting. Smolensk, like all tier X cruisers, has access to a Repair Party consumable. There's nothing out of the ordinary with her having one, but given the frustrations of landing hits on this ship (and good quality hits at that), it's presence is noteworthy. The real ship-defining consumable here is Smolensk's Smoke Generator. There aren't many cruisers with HE shells with a Smoke Generator and with good reason. Iwaki Alpha, Belfast, Mikhail Kutuzov, and Flint aren't exactly biword for balance. If it weren't for Perth and Huanghe providing some (occasionally) good press, this combination would deserve it's automatic derision. Still, Smolensk is moving the needle towards the direction of "never again" in my opinion (she says, then HMS London gets previewed). What's funny to me is that there were steps made to try and reign in Smolensk's Smoke Generator. Mikhail Kutuzov, the retired tier VIII Soviet premium cruiser uses the same Smoke Generator as tier VIII Soviet Destroyers. It would stand to reason that Smolensk would use the tier X version but she doesn't. She uses the same tier VIII version as Kutuzov. The difference here is that Smolensk's smoke "only" lasts for 89 seconds as opposed to the 97 seconds it could have been. r/There was an attempt... Smolensk's Smoke Generator combines with her excellent surface detection, getting down as low as 10km. Stack this onto her flexible gun range and she's a hard cruiser to find when she doesn't want to be seen. Aircraft carriers won't do the spotting here -- her aerial detection range is the same reach as her long-range AA bubble. That just leaves blasting her with radar, waiting for her to open fire or getting suicidally close. For destroyers, closing the distance is high-risk. Getting counter-spotted inside of 10km of Smolensk is a great way to get yourself sent back to port in a hurry. For anyone else, there's those torpedoes to worry about and that ridiculous DPM. Short of radar, a well played Smolensk is only seen when she wants to be seen, and that's only when she's pulling the trigger. Protection Hit Points: 32,400 Minimum Bow & Deck Armour: 16mm Maximum Citadel Protection: 16mm bow/stern + 100mm transverse bulkhead (70mm belt broadside) Torpedo Damage Reduction: Nope.jpg Armour so bad, it's good. Her conning tower and the forward faces of her turrets are 100mm thick -- just enough to prompt the occasional ricochet or shatter smaller caliber AP shells. Smolensk has an exposed citadel, but she's surprisingly resistant to broadside citadel damage from battleships. Her citadel roof is 50mm thick and will auto-ricochet any battleship shells attempting to penetrate it from a range of 21km or less (even then, good luck). So only shots aimed directly at her waterline (or just beneath) count. At 70mm, Smolensk's belt isn't thick enough to fuse AP shells greater than 420mm in caliber. There was some great work done on Reddit by U/R_radical (link here, please give it some well deserved love) which I followed up on for my own tests. The grossly simplified version is this: République, Thunderer, Ohio, Georgia, Musashi, Yamato and Kremlin are physically incapable of landing citadel hits against the flat broadside of Smolensk if the shells don't strike water before entering the ship. They need to hit angled surfaces to increase the relative thickness of Smolensk's belt in order to fuse. It gets worse, though. Smolensk has a narrow beam -- there just isn't enough room when striking Smolensk's flat broadside for most battleship shells with their 0.033s fuse timer to explode inside the ship. The shells have to be slowed down first and air drag doesn't really begin to be enough of an effect until you get to ranges of around 15km or more. For some battleships with high velocity shells like Roma, you're looking at ranges closer to 20km. Inside that distance, short of shells dunking beneath the water first, their AP rounds will pass clean through resulting in over penetrations despite hitting the bullseye of her machine spaces. Thus, battleships have to wait until Smolensk is angled in order to have a chance at landing penetrating and citadel hits. The size of these angles varies with range, but even at a distance of 15km, Yamato is looking at needing Smolensk to be angled out at least 30º from a flat broadside before she gets that magical combination of thick enough armour to arm her fuse AND enough space along her shell path to land a citadel hit. My own tests with Lert necessitated a 37º angle before we got lucky with Musashi's 460mm AP shells. If that wasn't enough, Smolensk still has a few tricks to play. Her 30mm will also autobounce any AP shells smaller than 429mm that strike it at too acute of an angle. And finally, if you think smashing shells through her fragile snoot will finally yield those big damaging hits, be aware that her upper transverse bulkhead is 100mm thick -- there's no overmatching that if the shell comes in too steeply as Smolensk angles away. The net effect to all of this confusing math is that Smolensk's armour is downright troll when battleships shoot at her. Over penetrations abound. Citadel hits are rare. Auto-ricochets happen just often enough to make you want to pull your hair out. Thanks to her Smoke Generator, hits alone are uncommon for slow-firing ships. If this analysis seems battleship-biased, you're right. That's because cruisers have no problems at all ripping apart Smolensk if they catch her. Smolensk has a tiny hit point pool -- a mere 0.9 Viribus Unitis (VU) worth -- which also means poor returns on her Repair Party consumable. While outright trading with Smolensk is generally a bad idea because of her monstrous DPM, the occasional pot shot from cruisers will yield big numbers when they slap this little Soviet monster. Do your poor battleships and destroyers a favour if you get the chance. Venezia and Puerto Rico are works in progress and still subject to change. Smolensk's HP total is awful. If skill points weren't at such a bloody premium, it would be worth spending three of them on Survivability Expert. The bonus 3,500hp (almost 11%) would make her equal to 1 VU. This is a totally important standard unit of measure for a cruiser, or so the constant whining about the new Austro-Hungarian battleship would have me believe. Agility Top Speed: 35 knots Reverse Speed: -13.6 knots Rudder Shift Time: 8.2 seconds Turning Circle Radius: 750 meters Maximum Rate of Turn: 5.7º/s at 4/4 speed Compared to other mid-to-high tier Soviet cruisers, Smolensk is hella agile. Krasny Krym, Murmansk and Makarov are the only ships that handle better (and I would question giving Makarov that honour). Krasny Krym manages it because she's a tier IV design. Murmansk and Makarov are borrowed ships from other nations. It's the smallest slights which sting the most. I think I might have stomached Smolensk's inclusion better had she not trespassed here. She doesn't handle like a Soviet cruiser and this irks me to no end. Allow me to explain. I've spent forever twirling boats. I've got a pretty good base understanding of how ships move in this game and I'm forever expanding that knowledge. I've come to recognize patterns and trends, not only between the different ship types but also within a given nation. Japanese cruisers are fast, American cruisers have small turning radii, British cruisers break the laws of physics, and so on and so forth. I must stress that these are trends -- not hard fast rules. Still, patterns exist and I don't think they're coincidental. The Soviet cruiser line is one of contrasts. Their low tier cruisers are ridiculously agile -- some of the most agile cruisers in the game. However at tier V, they transition to very fast ships with enormous turning circles. Barring borrowed and up-tiered designs (and Mikhail Kutuzov), Soviet cruisers pay for their sleek hull forms with poor handling. Smolensk doesn't. For a Soviet cruiser, she is bloody nimble. She's fast. Her rudder shift time is good. Her turning circle radius isn't appalling. And it's this last part where I take issue. I expected her to have a turning radius at the 820m mark or greater -- something like Chapayev or Shchors. This would scale back her rate of turn down from 5.7º/s to 5.2º/s or less -- still decent but definitely more in line with the Soviet light cruisers as a whole. And let me be clear: I'm aware I'm unfairly gate-keeping which ships are allowed to be agile. There's no hard-fast rule that says Soviet cruisers must handle like a pregnant yak in a mud-wallow. The Sverdlov-class doesn't. None of their low tier ships do either. It kinda makes sense that a small, anti-aircraft cruiser like Smolensk would be a wiggly little thing. Colbert is. The Atlanta-class is. Their radii are much tighter than what Smolensk can boast. Compared to those two, Smolensk is pretty chunktacular. In fact when you put her alongside these other AA cruisers, her turning radius is downright Soviet. Still, even with this minor disparity, this is one more thing Smolensk is hella-good at. She's got the firepower. She's got the stealth. She's got the smoke. She's got the speed. She even has the durability despite being worth 0.9 VU. Her AA power is excellent (specifically when you also account for her aerial detection). And now, with this, she's super agile too. She's hard to hit in the hands of a good player. It's bad enough that she's a small target and one that's hard to dig out of smoke. With her great range improvements, she can play the open water game and Just Dodge™ her way to victory when islands and smoke aren't an option. I suppose with all of the time I've spent with twirling ships, it explains why this is the final straw for me. It's kinda absurd, when I think about it, but when have feels ever made sense? I hate you, Smolensk and your cute, twirly butt. Placed against her peers at tier X, Smolensk comes out looking very good. She's behind Colbert, Minotaur, Venezia and Des Moines, but only when the American uses her Legendary Upgrade. Venezia and Puerto Rico are works in progress and still subject to change. Everything Else Just so I can say that I didn't leave it out: Camouflage & Refrigerator Smolensk's camouflage is the standard Type 20 Camouflage. This provides: 3% reduction of detectability by sea 4% increase of dispersion of shells fired by the enemy attacking your ship. 50% reduction of cost of the ship's post-battle service. 20% increase to credits earned per battle. 100% increase experience earned per battle. Smolensk's economy doesn't appear out of the ordinary, being comparable to the other tier X reward ships Bourgogne, Thunderer, Stalingrad, etc. Base Surface Detection: 12.78km Aerial Detection: 7.41km Minimum Surface Detection Range: 10.04km Detection Range When Firing in Smoke: 5.91km Main Battery Firing Range: Between 13.8km (stock) up to 19.21km Nothing further to add here that hasn't already been discussed above. Smolensk is smol and a sneaky danger-noodle. Anti Aircraft Defense Flak Bursts (3.5km to 6km): 8 explosions for 1,890 damage per blast Long Ranged AA Guns (6km): 167.6 damage every 0.32s Medium Ranged AA Guns (3.5km): 186.2 damage every 0.32s Short Ranged AA Guns (3.1km): 58.6 damage every 0.34s Smol-bote with biggish AA. It's important to note that with Concealment Modification 1 and Concealment Expert, Smolensk's aerial detection range is a mere 21mm (yes, millimeters) longer than her long-range AA power. Don't ask your CV to try and spot this thing -- they'll get shredded. Smolensk can bloody stealth-snipe aircraft. Final Evaluation From KC Green's fantastic Gunshow comic. I bloody hate this ship. I've hated working on this review all month. I've rewritten this damn thing so many times, never happy with the tone, never happy with the message. Even now I'm not sure I've properly communicated how frustrating it is to face off against a well-played version of this thing. I don't want to water down this sentiment (which I have so many times before) by mathing out the odds of actually meeting a competent Smolensk player or how, yes, it's technically possible to counter it with X, Y and Z. I don't like facing this ship for the same reasons that I cringe when I see a Flint, Belfast or Kutuzov on the enemy roster. In the end, it doesn't matter if the enemy Smolensk is good or not. My sentiments about the match are already soured. I consider myself a patient person and the presence of a Smolensk taxes even me. I am someone who can stomach playing against carriers. I enjoy my troll-ships. However, even I have my limits. I don't like playing Smolensk. It feels grossly unfair. It feels the same way as playing Belfast, Kutuzov or Flint. She has all of the advantages and few match-ups are unfavourable (short of derping into a Shimakaze torpedo like I did one game). The deeper I looked into Smolensk, the more concerned I became. There's a lot going on here -- a perfect storm of potential and so many different combinations to analyze that it's easy to see why Smolensk not only can be a piece of garbage in one player's hands and an absolute beast in another. If you don't have Smolensk yet, I dunno what to tell you. On the one hand, I don't want to play against your new ship. On the other, I know that there's a risk you could miss out. She's a bona fide reward ship -- not sold for cash money so nerfs are possible. What you invest in now might not be the ship we have six months from now. If you're hoping to preserve this sense of superiority, then she might not be worth the investment. This changes if she's eventually sold for cash. As a tier X ship, I see that as unlikely. This might change come Black Friday through Christmas, though. Wargaming does like to bundle everything together and ring the dinner bell. This is also the first year where we've had a veritable glut of tier X reward ships available. Once cash changes hands, Smolensk's performance is locked in. The only recourse from then on is to hope she becomes rare. And if that happens, if you haven't got her already, you're unlikely to ever get her. To Hell with it: If you don't have her yet, get her ASAP. Play her often. Play her so often that it chokes the matchmaker. T-59 this momo and have popularity necessitates re-evaluating her performance and availability. I don't see Smolensk surviving either change-free or remaining freely available, though who knows what kind of timeline this is on. She's that good. She's that annoying. How to Balans the Spreadsheets Recommended Upgrades There's a lot to unpack with the upgrades of high-tier ships, but it's generally simple. You want to build Smolensk for agility and gunnery. Everything else is secondary to this. Start with Main Armaments Modification 1 in your first slot. In your second slot, take the corresponding Special Upgrade for either Defensive AA Fire or Hydracoustic Search -- whichever consumable you tend to favour using. Barring that, default to Steering Gears Modification 1. You're going to be doing a lot of gunnery at range so Aiming Systems Modification 1 is a good investment (if only because the other upgrades are crap). If you prefer to play Smolensk more static -- hiding in smoke and behind islands, take Propulsion Modification 2 in your fourth slot. Otherwise, take Steering Gears Modification 2 for better open water agility. Similarly, if you prefer open-water play and feel confident with your ability to dodge, Steering Gears Modification 3 will serve you well. Otherwise take Concealment Modification 1 to make hiding easier. Between the two best options here, Gun Fire Control System Modification 2 is the preferred choice, extending Smolensk's range. This puts less of a strain on her commander skill options (the effects here can be replicated with Advanced Fire Training). If you've 4 skill points free, then by all means, take the range-skill instead and default to Main Battery Modification 3 for the increased reload speed. Or, you could get all the range and combine the two -- but at least one range upgrade is needed. Recommended Skills There's a bit of a balancing act going on here. You need to have at least one range-upgrade for Smolensk (need is a strong word, but trust me, it makes all the difference). So if you haven't taken Gun Fire Control Modification 2 then you have to select Advanced Fire Training for example. So let's look at the worth of individual skills rather than the total package: At tier 1, there are three skills worth considering. Priority Target and Incoming Fire Alert are the first pair and tend to be mutually exclusive -- take one, not both. The former gives you more information. The latter gives you more critical and specific information. The last skill that's worthwhile here is Preventative Maintenance, but it's definitely sub-optimal compared to the other two for Smolensk. At tier 2, Last Stand is highly recommended. While not on Destroyer levels of fragility, Smolensk's rudder gets shot out often and near misses from large caliber HE shells can (and will) knock out her engines. Adrenaline Rush is also a great skill if you have the leftover points to spend on it. Jack of All Trades is handy for reducing consumable reset timers, particularly when the action is heated and in combination with the November Foxtrot signal and premium consumables to further drop their cool down. Similarly, Smoke Screen Expert is nice for the extra room to move around, especially if you plan to be sharing your smoke with a friend. At tier 3, there's a glut of choices here. Superintendent is arguably the best of the lot for the extra heal and extra charge of Smoke Generator. Basic Fire Training and Demolition Expert also play to Smolensk's best strengths. Beyond this, there are skills that are simply "nice to have" but hardly an efficient use of points including Vigilance and Torpedo Armament Expertise. The tier 4 skills are contentious and, frankly, are largely a matter of personal taste. Advanced Fire Training is all but mandatory in the absence of Gun Fire Control Modification 2 (how many times have I said that now?). Concealment Expert is amazing for its points cost, improving not only her survivability but opening up the door to ambushing aircraft with Concealment Modification 1, yet I wouldn't consider this skill required. Probably the best investment is Inertial Fuse for HE Shells, opening the door for Smolensk to directly damage the extremities of all heavy cruisers within her matchmaking. But even this isn't mandatory if you just want to make battleships burn. Finally, for the truly eclectic, there's Radio Location for those who fancy themselves as destroyer hunters in the late-game. Green = All but Mandatory. Yellow = Highly recommended. Red = Situational. Note this only applies to normal commanders. Special commanders, with their baked in bonuses, changes things. Last Bits And here I told myself this was going to be a short review. The amount of prep-work for this review was insane. I started mapping the dispersion of cruisers (ugh!), tested battleship AP fuses, did more work on torpedo damage, played with AA, did even more twirling, never mind all of that dirty, DIRTY play testing. You'll note a lack of an Angry YouTuber jpeg at the end of this article. That's deliberate. Some of my readers get too hung up on the soundbite at the end rather than the message as a whole. They might return at some point, but I'm retiring them for the time being. Thank you for reading.
  10. Throughout the course of maritime warfare history since the advent of steam-powered engines in marine engineering, the cruiser-class warship has retroactively proven itself to be a versatile naval war machine on numerous naval combats, capable of performing a wide spectrum of combat roles & tasks depending on the nature of a cruiser's design philosophy, of which neither a battleship nor a destroyer were capable of at those times before the early years of Cold War. Cruisers can be designed & built in various shapes & forms, such as armored cruiser, torpedo cruiser, battlecruiser, scout cruiser, light or heavy cruiser, cruiser killer & even aircraft cruiser. Both of those aforementioned varieties of cruiser-class warships were purpose-built on the framework of their respective design philosophies to determine their technical performances on both tactical & strategic values as an assets in naval warfare. One of the most peculiar cruiser-class warships even existed in concept & design before WWII, was the USSR's Large Cruiser Project "X". Whilst its design was initially intended to be a "cruiser killer" type of heavy cruiser, it was also given a few more combat roles to ensure the Project "X" large cruiser, at least theoretically, is capable of coordinating a small fleet or a flotilla, as well as able to operate independently from fleet command for at least within a few days or within a week period at most. Hence, Project "X" was dubbed, for the lack of better term, the "Superman of Soviet Lands". Soviet Large Cruiser Project "X" - Multipurpose Reconnaissance Heavy Cruiser Concept By 1935, as Dr. Anatoly I. Maslov unveiled Pr. 26 - Kirov to be the first contemporary "light cruiser" for the Soviet Navy in the intensive efforts to rebuild the maritime force of the Soviet Armed Force under the Big Fleet Program at the behest of Joseph Stalin, his colleague V. P. Rimsky-Korsakov conceived the Project "X" large cruiser as the first attempt to materialize the first "heavy cruiser" for the Soviet Navy. Rimsky-Korsakov's concept for his "large cruiser" was not only to be capable of destroying enemy cruisers being as large as the German Deutschland-class cruiser with its main guns being larger than 203mm in caliber, but also to be self-sufficient enough to conduct an autonomous operation outside of the fleet command's chain of command within a certain period of time while coordinating its task/strike force in the form of a small fleet division or a sizable flotilla consist of a few light cruisers, destroyer leaders such as Kiev-class & Tashkent-class, along with a handful of destroyers, submarines, support ships & other smaller sea combatants. Be it carrying out anti-submarine warfare, commerce raiding, intercept enemy raiders or operating a small-medium scale skirmishes, Project "X" was intended to fulfill those aforementioned roles in an unconventional means. Project "X" was designed on the standard displacement of at least 15,518 tonnes & about 17,350 tonnes on full load displacement. In terms of ship hull dimension, it would be 233.6 m in length, 22.3 m in width & 6.6 m in waterline draft. Armed with 4 x 3 - 240 mm/60 main guns; supplemented with 6 x 2 - 130 mm/50 B-2LM twin gun deck turrets, 2 x 3 - 533 mm triple torpedo tubes, 6 x 1 - 45 mm/46 21-K AA cannons & 4 x 1 - 12.7x108 mm DShK heavy machine guns. 240 mm/60 naval gun specs:- • projectile weight: 235 kg • muzzle velocity: 940 m / s • charge mass: 100 kg • ammunition per gun: 110 rds. • rate of fire at an elevation angle of 10 degrees: 5 rds / min • traverse angle: –5 degrees to +60 degrees As for propulsion, Project "X" was designed in the 3-shaft propellers configuration; powered by a total six steam turbine engines & six boilers to generate a total power output of 210,000 shp to produce a top speed of not more than 38.0 knots, in theoretical calculations. Each propeller shaft was to be powered by two steam turbine engines & two boilers to generate a local power output up to 70,000 shp. Such kind of propulsion system would then be applied on destroyer Pr. 45 - Opytny. Armor scheme: Belt - 115 mm Deck - 75 mm Barbette - 115 mm Conning tower - 100 - 150 mm Main turret - 75 - 115 mm B-2LM turret - 50 mm Bulkhead - 115 mm Project "X" was designed on an unusually large hull profile possibly based on Kirov-class in design, with an elongated aft & stern sections to include a large aircraft hangar to accommodate an unusual number of seaplanes of choice (i.e. KOR-1/Be-2 or KOR-2/Be-4) up to at least 9 seaplanes. As such, Project "X" would have effectively function as an aircraft cruiser. Interestingly, the design philosophy behind Project "X" was likely to be based on the Imperial Japanese Navy's Mogami-class & Tone-class heavy cruisers, which were then modified into an aircraft cruiser capable of accommodating between 6 - 11 seaplanes, with the former historically capable to carry up to 11 seaplanes at the very least. It was probably no accident that Rimsky-Korsakov came up with the idea of multipurpose large cruiser, based on the intel gathered from an espionage on the IJN's activities. Moreover, there also was the light cruiser Ooyodo which also initially built to function as an aircraft cruiser, but ultimately functioned more as a command cruiser. IJN Light Cruiser Ooyodo Ultimately, they would mean the Project "X" large cruiser would have been the combination of a firepower of German's Deutschland & Japanese's Tone, plus the multipurpose functionality of the Japanese's Ooyodo. In addition, Project "X" was to get at least two submersible torpedo boats/midget subs designed by TsKBS-1 design bureau, known as the "Flea" - «Блоха» . "Flea-400" submersible torpedo boat/midget sub - «Блохи-400»
  11. I would like to commend Yuzorah for posted the article of the new Soviet VMF light & heavy cruisers recently: https://thedailybounce.net/world-of-warships/world-of-warships-the-russian-cruisers-line-split/ I thank him for sparing me the trouble from making a long article, which I'll save it for my other articles in the future. Still, I would like to help making an introspective to complete the circle. Tier V - Kotovsky appears to be, from my knowledge, is possibly an overhauled light cruiser Admiral Butakov of the Svetlana-class (which was incomplete prior to the Russian Civil War). Largely based on Project 78 training cruiser modernization & refit plan, in addition to the Project MK-4 prior to Project 94 Budyonny development & postwar Project MLK-series design studies, particularly the 4 x 2 -152mm MK-4 twin guns. Данные Проект МК-3 МК-4 МК-5 МК-6 Проект 94 по ОТЗ июня 1940 Проект 94 по ОТЗ декабря 1940 Дата — 2 апреля 1940 — 20 марта 1941 Июнь 1940 Декабрь 1940 Водоизмещение 7760 8000 8130 7800 7500 8200 Главный калибр 3х2 152 мм 3х2 152 мм 3х2 152 мм 5х2 130 мм 3х2 152 мм 3х3 152 мм So instead of the 130mm B-2LM turrets, the 152mm MK-4 turrets are selected in place of them. Alexander Nevsky is indeed the Project 84 air defence cruiser. The namesake is befitting for Tier X, given Alexander Nevsky was made a saint in Russian history & is considered as one of the most respectable men among the Russian people with high esteem. Besides, I like how WG devs opted for two SM-48 twin DP gun turrets on the aft of Borodino in place of the nonexistent single quad DP gun turret as shown in the draft blueprint (sensible choice). Just in case if anyone has yet to know what is Borodino & which project she came from, Borodino is, in actuality, the Project TsNII-45 small battleship - Variant III+III-3 Tallinn is indeed an ex-German Hipper-class heavy cruiser Lutzow, and she was formerly Petropavlovsk before renamed to Tallinn after raised from sinking. This Tallinn was, in actuality, to be officially retrofitted under Project 83-K. But it seems like Tallinn is given Kirov's MK-3-180 main gun turrets instead of the supposedly Chapayev's 152mm MK-5 triple gun turrets as originally planned for Pr. 83-K. 4 x 3 – 152mm/57 MK-5 triple gun turrets 6 x 2 – 100mm/70 SM-5-1 twin DP gun turrets 3 x 4 – 45mm/78 SM-20-ZIF quad heavy AA gun mounts 6 x 4 – 25mm/79 4M-120 quad light AA gun mounts I'm not entirely clear about both Riga & Petropavlovsk. But the one thing is certain to me, is that both Riga & Petropavlovsk are supposedly representing a direct parallel to Project 69 - Kronshtadt & Project 82 - Stalingrad. Whilst Petropavlovsk is possibly the Variant III of the Pr. 82 development before it officially laid down as Stalingrad with more modern 305mm main guns, Riga could likely be Project 22 heavy cruiser/battlecruiser that was later cancelled & carried forward to the development of Pr. 69 - Kronshtadt. Other source suggested that Pr. 22 was later picked up for studies to develop Pr. 66 - Moskva. (I sense a slight discrepancy in regards to the fate of Pr. 22) In addition, with Nevsky announced to be the top tier AACL, I got the feeling that Dimitri Donskoy could as well receive a 152mm BL-118 triple DP gun turrets upgrade to keep in the line with the general trend of Tier IX & X being an AACLs like USN's Seattle & Worcester, as well as RN's Neptune & Minotaur.
  12. CHAPTER 1: Luftwaffe attacks the the Russian Baltic Fleet Soviet side: 2 Oktober Revolution 2 Kirov 6 Gnevny 1 Minsk 1 Leningrad The Russians will move into the cove port before we start. The goal is to save at least one bb and one cruiser. There will be 3 full waves of german bomber attacks you will need to defend against. German side: 2-3 Graff zeppelins using Dive bombers to attack the fleet they will be representing the Luftwaffe. The germans will need to sink at least 1 cruiser and 2 BBs. Map: big race CHAPTER 2: Russian Baltic fleet attempts a breakout Soviet side: 2 Oktober Revolution 2 Kirov 6 Gnevny 1 Minsk 1 Leningrad German side: 1 Tirpitz 1 Graf Spee 1 Nürnberg 1 Königsberg 3 Z-23 3 T-22 as torpedo boats-they would be limited to front gun and torps only and if we have enough people. If people want to play the bait role and there is enough people we can add a Karlsruhe and another Nürnberg as the bait squad. -[MIA-P] thegamefilmguruman Goal is for the Soviet side is to get as many ships to the other side of the map (Sweden) alive as possible, with special emphasis on the 2 Gangut class battleships and Kirovs. The German side’s goal is to sink the 2 Ganguts and Kirovs, and the extra DDs are bonus points. We are going to see how this goes with AP only the first go around then go from there. post in the comments if you are interested We will try this on this next coming Friday on Dec 6th 12/6/19. 8:00PM-10:30PM US Eastern standard time , 7:00-9:30 PM US CENTRAL TIME, 6:00-8:30 PM US MOUNTAIN TIME, 5:00-7:30 PM US PACIFIC TIME , 10:00AM -12:30 PM in Sydney Australia 8:00 AM - 10:30 AM in Perth Australia. if anyone is interested in helping to make new events or suggestions feel free to join the workshop discord https://discord.gg/ygjyP2G the event for this will be in the same discord for voice. https://docs.google.com/document/d/12jAZ81RpCzVTBh1795BQ_W79Qg8WCSwHTO1U3er9VyM/edit?usp=sharing dseehafer “Throughout the entirety of WWII Germany sent several fleets out for several reasons, on several occasions fleets of varying sizes were sent out to hunt convoys, Scharnhorst and Tirpitz were once part of an invasion fleet against the Island of Spitzbergen, and several fleets sailed to lay mine-fields, but only once was a large German fleet sent out with the express purpose of engaging another enemy fleet in combat. Which fleet was the German fleet to do battle with? The French? The British? No sir, it was the Russians! In September 1941 German army and air forces launched their initial assault on the port city of Leningrad where the Russian Baltic Fleet was stationed. The Germans feared that the Russian Baltic fleet might attempt to make a break for it and escape capture or destruction. The German battleship Tirpitz had only just completed her working up trials and had just been declared ready for combat when, on the 23rd of September, she received orders to sail from Swinemunde to join up with the newly formed Baltenflotte as its flagship. The German fleet sailed North-East to Foglofjord, arriving at 14:05 on the 24th, where they anchored and waited for the expected breakout of the Soviet Baltic Fleet. The Soviets never set sail, their fleet had been badly damaged the day before by German air raids while anchored in Kronstadt which saw their battleship Marat sunk. On the 25th it became clear that the Soviet fleet was in no condition to attempt a breakout and the German Baltenflotte was disbanded. Still, It begs the question... What if the air attacks failed? What if the Russian Baltic fleet attempted a breakout? What if these two battle fleets engaged? The resulting clash would have been the largest battle between two battleship fleets of the war in Northern waters! What do you think would have happened?” -dseehafer The German Baltenflotte at sea Major Members of the Soviet Baltic Fleet Marat sunk by German bombers Original post by dseehafer https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/152780-the-only-time-the-kriegsmarine-sent-a-fleet-to-do-battle-with-another-fleet/
  13. The only real change to the Gremyashchy since I first reviewed her was the inclusion of camouflage for premium ships. And she looks rather dashing her in her off-white scheme. Quick Summary: A Soviet Gnevny-class destroyer with improved agility, concealment , torpedoes and HE rounds. Patch & Date Written: 0.5.16.0 - December 25th, 2016 Cost: Originally only sold individually or as a part of a pre-order bundle in Spring of 2015. During Christmas of 2016, many players reported acquiring them through the "Santa's Secret Stash" promotion. Closest in-Game Contemporary Anshan, Tier 6 Premium Pan-Asian DestroyerDegree of Similarity: Clone / Sister-Ship / Related Class / Similar Role / Unique I got quite upset, once upon a time, when various players reported that the Anshan was effectively a tier 6 Gremyashchy. I made it a personal mission to dispel this illusion, perhaps a little too vehemently. The two ships do share a lot of similarities, but the Anshan is a far cry from the second coming of the Gremyashchy. While superficially similar, the Asian destroyer doesn't have the same agility, high explosive shells or stealth capabilities of the pre-order vessel. PROs Good muzzle velocity and flat shell trajectory with her 130mm rifles with an impressive 11.9km range. Excellent AP performance with a high alpha strike of 2,500 per shell. Quite capable of stacking citadels upon cruisers that leave their broadside exposed at medium to close ranges. Better HE performance than any contemporary Soviet Destroyers, with 1,900 alpha strike and a base 9% to start fires with each hit. This makes her one of the best fire starting Destroyers in the game. Very good torpedoes with an 8km range and 14,400 maximum damage. Tiny turning circle of 510m and short rudder shift time of 2.7s Excellent concealment values while firing, giving her a 1.0km stealth firing window even without premium camouflage or Captain Skills. CONs Very low armour values of 10mm along nearly the whole length of her hull. British 152mm AP shells will easily overmatch this preventing her from being able to angle against it. Horrible gun traverse, with a 5° per second turret rotation (36s for 180°). The ship easily out turns them. Poor fire angles on her #3 turret. Torpedoes are slow at 55 knots. Large surface detection range for a tier 5 destroyer at 7.0km base. The sun sets on 2016. I'm very curious to see how much the game will change in 2017 and what effect it will have on the various premium ships I've looked at over the last year. Nothing has really changed on the Gremyashchy since I first reviewed her. However, the game has changed around her over the last year. Soviet and British cruisers have joined the ranks. So too have German Battleships and another handful of Japanese Destroyers. The module system got tweaked and Captain Skills were overhauled. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, Matchmaker changes pit the Gremyashchy more and more against what could be considered more fair opposition for this relic of the past. To be certain, the Gremyashchy is a fossil. Like the Warspite, she's a snapshot of World of Warships from an earlier time, representing norms that no longer exist. She used to be a middle-road destroyer with worse gunnery and brawling ability to the USN Nicholas and significantly worse torpedoes to the IJN Minekaze. She couldn't hold a candle to these two rival destroyers in their chosen areas of excellence and this made her seem a bit of a poor choice overall -- so much so that many players passed up the chance to purchase her when she was available. I cannot stress this enough: The Gremyashchy was often overlooked in favour of the Yubari and Sims at the time. Those that saw her merits loved her, but she was so often dismissed. With the typical attrition of the player base over time, the Gremyashchy has become an increasingly rare sight until recently. While it remains possible to earn a Gremyashchy through a Super Container, the 2016 Christmas Promotion, "Santa's Secret Stash" has yielded a significant number of these ships to the player base. This is by no means guaranteed, of course. The more premium ships a player owned already, the more likely they were to draw this ship as the loot containers seemed loathe to duplicate vessels already owned. While some seemed to acquire her with ease, others have gone through a long frustration of receiving anything but. To this end, I thought it prudent to revisit the Gremyashchy and express what all the fuss is about. Options The Gremyashchy is very predictable when it comes to her options. All of her consumables and module slots are standard for her nationality. There's nothing out of the ordinary here. Consumables: Damage Control Party Smoke Generator Engine Boost Module Upgrades: Three slots, standard destroyer options.Premium Camouflage: Tier 2 to 5 Standard. This provides 30% bonus experience gains, 3% reduction in surface detection and 4% reduction in enemy accuracy. Firepower Primary Battery: Four 130mm rifles in four turrets in an A-B-X-Y superfiring configuration Torpedo Armament: Six 533mm torpedoes in 2x3 dorsal launchers. Let's start with Torpedoes. Like the Molotov, the Gremyashchy is armed with a weapon system of a comparable Soviet ship several tiers higher than it. While the Molotov gets the same guns as the tier 9 Dmitri Donskoi, the Gremyashchy gets a similar torpedo armament of the tier 8 Tashkent. If this raises a few alarm bells; it should. The Tashkent's torpedoes are terrible for a tier 8 ship. All joking aside, the Gremyashchy has torpedoes that now compete very closely to its tier 5 counterparts, but this wasn't always the case. To best understand the Gremyashchy's weapon systems and why they're considered so overpowered, you have to look at her competition when she was first introduced. Her only contemporaries at the time were the Minekaze and Nicholas, but these ships were very different at the time of their inception. Let's start by comparing their torpedo armaments from the Closed-Beta era. Values were pulled from World of Warships Closed Beta, around Patch 0.3.1.3 While it's perhaps common knowledge that the Minekaze was a better torpedo ship when compared to the Gremyashchy, it's important to appreciate just how much better the Minekaze was. While both ships had comparable hitting power with individual torpedoes, the Minekaze fired her torpedoes 50% faster than the Gremyashchy. Her fish moved at higher speeds regardless of which armament she elected to use. With her 1.1km surface detection range advantage over the Gremyashchy, she could get closer to her prey to help guarantee hits or sit way back and never risk detection with her 10km torpedoes. The Nicholas' torpedoes were designed for close quarters brawling. Let's look at how things have changed. Note the drop in reaction times. Tier 4 and 5 is always a kick in the teeth for novice Battleship Captains that don't appreciate that you need to dodge torpedoes long before they're spotted. The Minekaze has fallen a long way since Closed Beta. While she retains a blistering rate of fire, that's about all she can now claim. When we look at the Gremyashchy, she appeared to only be a modest torpedo boat in Closed Beta. However, it would be hard to argue that she's not one of the most attractive torpedo platforms at tier 5 currently, with only the Kamikaze, Mutsuki and T-22 being comparable or better. It should be noted that her torpedo armament does not stand head and shoulders over her competition, but that it merely remains competitive. She has the slowest torpedoes at tier 5 and one of the largest surface detection ranges. This requires her to launch torpedoes from further out, making it more likely for her to miss from minor course adjustments of her prey. The Gremyashchy doesn't have better torpedoes than any of her tier 5 counterparts. However, she is no longer outdone by them to any significant degree like she was when she was introduced. Now let's take a look at her Guns. Main BatteryThere are only a couple of downsides to the Gremyashchy's guns. The first is the most obvious: She has horrible gun traverse rates. Needing 36s to complete a 180° rotation, this can feel downright punitive until Captain Skills or modules are used to accelerate it. Still, even with all of the boosts available, the Gremyashchy can and will out turn her guns with even the smallest adjustments of her rudder. This will often get novice Gremyashchy players in trouble as they'll abstain from conducting any maneuvers at all while under fire, leading to predictable deaths from enemy gun and torpedo fire. The second setback is a minor one. Her #3 rifle has her fire angles impaired by a pair of 12.7mm machine gun mounts. This can only rotate forward to 53° while her #4 can reach as far forward as 30°. These drawbacks aside, it's hard to see the Gremyashchy's main battery as being anything but superior to her contemporaries at tier 5. In fact, it's not until you stack her against tier 7 ships that her performance begins to wane. Like her torpedoes, this again wasn't always the case. The Nicholas used to be a much better close-range gunnery platform to the Gremyashchy, back before the changes to AP and HE shells around 0.3.1 and through to 0.3.1.3. This saw AP and HE switch places in terms of primacy where destroyer shooting was concerned and the Nicholas never really recovered. After 0.3.1.3 in Closed Beta, the Gremyashchy began standing on par with the Nicholas or exceeding her and she's never really looked back since. Currently at tier 5, the Gremyashchy has the best AP shell, the second best HE shell behind only the premium Kamikaze-class Destroyers. Yet she's the best fire starter at her tier. On top of this, she has the excellent ballistic arcs found on the IJN ships yet without the range limitations. The Gremyashchy has a 1km reach advantage over the Nicholas and T-22 and only falls behind them in terms of rate of fire. It gets worse when you compare her to the lead of her class. She dodged the 0.5.2 nerf that shaved 300hp off of Soviet HE shells and dropped their fire chance from 9%,which the Gremyashchy retains, to 7% (this was later buffed back up to 8%). On top of this, she doesn't suffer the 2.0km additional surface detection range "tax" added to all Soviet 130mm Destroyer caliber guns. This allows her to stealth fire from the surface while stock at a range of 10.9km or greater. Once combined with Captain Skills and camouflage, this stealth-window gets absolutely insane. Summary Perhaps now you can start to see the issue with the Gremyashchy. She has not only an excellent main armament but she also has an excellent torpedo armament. No other destroyer at her tier mixes these two systems to the same effect. She doesn't meet any serious challengers to this kind of balanced mix of main battery & torpedo armament until the tier 7 Destroyers and she can almost keep up with those! Best overall gun performance at her tier. Highly competitive torpedo armament. Capable of using both weapon systems from concealment while stock. The only real downside is her sluggish turret traverse. Arguably the equivalent of a modest tier 7 destroyer in terms of firepower. The Gremyashchy's guns are horribly overpowered with ridiculous stealth characteristics. However, don't overlook her torpedoes. They are phenomenal in their own right. While leaning on only a single weapon system will still net you great games, using the right combinations of AP, HE and Torpedoes will allow you to utterly dominate in a given match. Maneuverability Top Speed: 37.0 knots Turning Radius: 510m Rudder Shift Time: 2.7s If you were hoping to see some form of moderation appear here, you're out of luck. Back in patch 0.3.1, the Gremyashchy had her turning circle kicked down from 630m to its current 510m. This was countered by a 6.0s rudder shift time, but clearly that didn't stick. So now she enjoys the best of both worlds and it's not like every other destroyer can say the same. She has the tightest turning circle at her tier and a very competitive rudder shift time. It should be noted that this agility comes with the price of being quite apt at out turning her turret traverse. While this may be frustrating, remember short of lining up a kill shot, it's always preferable to focus on evasion over doing damage in a destroyer. She's not the fastest destroyer (that honour goes to the Minekaze at 39.0 knots) but her own top speed is competitive enough to keep pace with everything she might face. Durability Hit Points: 13,100 Maximum Protection: 13mm Min Bow & Deck Armour: 10mm It probably comes as no surprise that the Gremyashchy is lightly armoured. What may surprise some of my readers is that she's more lightly armoured than most other destroyers at her tier -- and this can be a real problem thanks to the inclusion of the Royal Navy cruisers. It takes a minimum of 11mm of armour to be able to bounce the 152mm AP shells that the British cruisers fire. Though the Gremyashchy has these values along her deck and turret faces (as do all destroyers), she does not have them along her hull. This makes it impossible for her to angle against incoming AP fire from British warships and attempt some lucky ricochets -- something that all of the other destroyers can. This may seem like a small weakness, but it's worth keeping in mind. Concealment & Camouflage Surface Detection Range: 7.0km Air Detection Range: 3.6km Minimum Surface Detection Range: 6.1km Concealment Penalty while Firing: +3.9km (vs 11.9km gun range) This is the last piece of the puzzle which describes exactly why Wargaming will not sell the Gremyashchy anymore. She doesn't suffer from the same concealment penalties that have afflicted Soviet and German Destroyers. The original concealment penalty calculation when firing guns is 0.03 times the shell diameter. Soviet Destroyers add an additional 2.0km to this range and German Destroyers add 3.5km. Not so the Gremyashchy. The result is that while stock, she has a 1.0km stealth firing window (1.2km with her camouflage) when using her main battery. When Captain Skills are thrown into the mix, this can allow the Gremyashchy to sit just beyond 10km of an enemy and pour fire into her without risking detection. Keep in mind, at these ranges she can potentially citadel a light cruiser with her AP rounds or accurately place HE shells on each separate section of a Battleship to maximize fires. This is also close enough to continue pelting an enemy destroyer with a reasonable chance of landing shells on target even when they evade. Short of Wargaming overhauling the stealth-firing mechanics for the game as a whole (such as changing the stealth firing penalty to shell diameter * 0.04 or higher) , the Gremyashchy will always be overpowered in this regard. A mid-tier CV's worst nightmare: An alert Gremyashchy within gun range. Anti-Aircraft DefenseAA Battery Calibers: 76mm / 37mm / 12.7mmAA Umbrella Ranges: 3.0km / 3.2km / 1.2kmAA DPS per Aura: 4 / 23 / 17 For a mid-tier Destroyer, the Gremyashchy's anti-aircraft firepower is rather decent. It's not great by any means. I wouldn't trust it to shoot down anything before it made its attack run, but it may bruise any planes sent to linger around her in order to keep her spotted. Most of the time, though, you're best to just leave this turned off. Overall Impressions Skill Floor: Simple / Casual / Challenging / Difficult Skill Ceiling: Low / Moderate / High / Extreme The potential for this ship is enormous. Like many destroyers, she's not quite user-friendly enough that just anyone will be able to take her out and score big each and every time. Without an appreciation for stealth mechanics, without respecting ammunition choices and proper consumable management, the Gremyashchy will fail to deliver. The tools are all there, don't get me wrong, but a novice can still easily mishandle this little monster. But in terms of raw carry potential? The sky's the limit. If you see one of these ships on the enemy team, take any opportunity to delete it as of paramount importance. In the right hands, there are some ships on your team that do not stand a chance -- full stop. Slow "brick" Battleships are meat on the table. Light Cruisers without long-range detection consumables like Radar or Aircraft are horribly vulnerable. A Gremmy player that knows how to ride the knife edge of detection, that keeps map awareness up and juggles shell management like a boss will give any team a very, very bad day. Pray you can detonate the fiend. Mouse's Summary: What weaknesses? Seriously... Good guns, good torps, good stealth, good concealment, good agility... Need I go on? Let's hope that any changes to stealth firing in the future also affect the Gremyashchy, or she's only going to get worse. In her current state, she belongs at tier 7. Studying the Gremyashchy is fascinating. In writing this review, I spent a lot of time looking up her original stats from back in Closed Beta. This is no easy feat. Wargaming no longer appears to host the Patch Notes from those times on the North American or European Servers and a lot of changes were undocumented. It was only through reviews and replays that I could get a clear image of what she was compared to what she is now. A lot of the information was piecemeal. It was difficult enough to find what I wanted for the Gremyashchy and down right impossible to also find Minekaze and Nicholas data from the same patch. Changes were rampant back between patches 3.1 to 3.1.3 with a see-saw of gunnery statistics as the primacy of AP was diminished and HE became dominant. It has to be said that the Gremyashchy came out of Closed Beta in a very healthy state. This isn't something all Premiums can boast (I'm looking at you, Atlanta). But it wasn't just the changes to Closed Beta that put the Gremyashchy on top. It's been the continued refinement (some might describe it as an erosion) of the balance at tier 5. The 3.5km surface detection penalty while firing on German Destroyers looks downright punitive in the current meta. It makes the 2.0km surface detection penalty on the Soviet Destroyers look downright manageable. The Minekaze is a hollow shell of her former self. And if rumours are to be believed, the Kamikaze-class will no longer be made available for purchase in the future. It's clear the environment at tier 5 is becoming all the more forgiving for the Gremmy as serious competition is being shackled by more moderated stats. I seriously considered measuring the Gremmy not against the tier 5s but against the tier 7 destroyers. It was shocking to see just how close she came to the likes of the Leningrad. While she's lacking on DPM, as she is presently, I do think she could slot in at tier 7 provided stealth gunnery does not change in the future -- yes, I think she's that powerful. It would be a tough sell which is why I wussed out and decided to instead focus on her Closed Beta statistics. Cross drop? No problem. The Gremmy's agility makes dodging fish look easy. Would I Recommend? Like the Imperator Nikolai I, there's only two ways presently to acquire the Gremyashchy. The first is to find her in a Super Container earned through the daily experience grind. The more Premium ships you own, the more likely you are to finally get one, so that's pretty cool. I can only imagine how awesome it would feel to get her this way ... and how frustrating it must be if you've pinned your hopes on this. The other option is with the Christmas 2016 sale where players could buy different sized loot containers. I wish there was some actual data on the odds of earning a rare ship through this promotion. There are a lot of anecdotal experiences that can be found on Reddit or the official forums. It seems that similar to Super Containers above, the more Premium Ships a player owns, the more likely they are to acquire a Gremyashchy. But this is by no means certain. Anyone hoping to beat the odds should be careful with their coin. Getting the Gremyashchy, while it seems to be possible, may not be likely. For Random Battle Grinding The Gremyashchy is a PUB stomping monster. She's a perfect choice for someone looking to help train their Soviet Captains, to earn a few extra credits or simply to farm awards like Kraken Unleashed. I cannot recommend her enough for this. For Competitive Gaming If you have the option of using the Gremyashchy in some form of competitive arena, then she's an excellent choice. For Collectors Meh? For many of us in the West, the Gremyashchy has more value as a rare-ship in this game than for her historical achievements. She is one of the few Soviet Warships that saw surface action in WWII, engaging German Destroyers. For Fun Factor She's one of my most played ships for a reason. I just wish I didn't feel so dirty afterwards... How to Equip your Gremyashchy There should be no real surprises here. Recommended Modules As a tier 5 ship, there's only three module slots to contend with. For your first slot, take Magazine Modification 1 to reduce buzz-killing, horrendous kablooies. You have a choice for your second slot between Aiming Systems Modifaction 1 and Main Battery Modification 2. Which you take largely depends on the Concealment rating of your Gremmy. If you specialize her through your Captain Skills for range and stealth, the former will be more valuable as you will not need to maneuver your ship as often. Without them, then the latter is the better choice. This will keep your guns on target longer and offsets any loss to your DPM as a result. Guess what? The third slot modules are still terrible. Take whichever one you like. Recommended Consumables As a destroyer, I strongly recommend taking a premium version of your Smoke Generator. This will add an extra charge, but more importantly, it will also reduce the reset timer to 80s from 120s. It's up to you if you want to use premium versions of the other two consumables. I personally use a premium Damage Control Party, but most games it's largely superfluous. Those few times it has come in handy, it's more to bail out my own stupidity than any necessity predicated by ship performance. Recommended Captain Skills The big choice with the Gremyashchy is whether to push for Concealment bonuses right away or to linger in the lower tiered skills for more quality of life improvements. Here's how it breaks down. At the first tier, Basic Fire Training is your best choice. This bumps up her rate of fire to 13.2rpm. There's no surprise that as a destroyer, you'll want Last Stand first and foremost. However, you'll also (desperately) want Expert Marksman. And lastly, Torpedo Armament Expertise is also highly coveted to reduce that reload timer, but consider this a tertiary skill. At tier 3, Superintendent is still the best choice, if only for the extra charge on your Smoke Generator. At tier 4, there are two skills worth considering. Advanced Fire Training may seem like the obvious choice. This will increase your range up to 14.3km and boost your stealth firing window from 1.2km (with camouflage) to 3.6km. However, with discipline, you can just as easily manage without it and take Demolition Expert instead to increase your fire chance to 12% per shell. If you didn't double up on tier 4 skills, then Concealment Expert is the best choice at tier 5. Without Advanced Fire Training, this increases your stealth firing window with torpedoes AND guns to 1.9km. With Advanced Fire Training, your gun window opens up to 4.3km which is stupidly overpowered. For more articles in this series, please visit: LittleWhiteMouse's Mega Ship Review Guide
  14. Toxic_Potato

    Kremlin - Post Release Info

    -The NA release name is Kremlin - Credit making appears to be on the low side. - NO RADAR - The WIP Ship had a Radar that would pick up BB and CV. Last for 1 min. Range 15 KM. No Radar!!! - Turning Circle - Not as bad as I expected. - Flamu and other CC's will have to do new video's - Ship appears to me to have had Buffs after removal of Radar. Significantly different from Flamu's video. - Scary in the right hands... My First Game - Highest damage ever for me in any BB. I am an average or below average BB player - 196K - Only flew Economic flags. - Did not encounter Yamato or 18 inch Conquerer. - Do not show broadsides to this ship. Many of you have to change the way you begin the game. Not angled at the start is not going to work. - Only 3 sunk. - Sunk by getting multiple hits broadside at close range by angry losing team waving pitchforks and complaining about "Russian Bias"'
  15. Tier III – Knyaz Suvorov Named after Prince/Count Generalissimo Alexander Suvorov, the most renowned Russian prominent military leader throughout the Russian military history. As the last generalissimo of the Imperial Russian military, he was the man who have achieved numerous victories in over 60 battles & many of Soviet & Russian military doctrines were shaped by his legacy combat & logistics doctrines & even the importance of military personnel's morale. Possibly a fitting given namesake for captains & admirals to start getting familiar with Russian/Soviet BBs, honing combat skills as well as tactics & strategies management, and most of all, mustering the leadership to lead the division & fleet to be their examples to follow, not just by force alone.  Tier IV – Gangut Named after Battle of Gangut, which was representing the first important & decisive naval victory in the Russian Navy history. It was them against the Swedish Navy at the Hanko Peninsula of the Southern Finland. It was celebrated by the Imperial Russian Navy since then & tend to have a tradition to named at least one capital ship after that particular naval battle. Tier V – Pyotr Veliky Named after Peter The Great. The once successful Tsar who then became the founder of the Russian Empire, effectively crowned the first Emperor/Imperator of the newly-founded Russian Empire & the head ruler of House Romanov that has long reigned the empire until 1917. He was famous for Westernized most of the Russian cultures, traditions & government institutions reform, as well as laid a framework to modernized & shaped the Russian Navy as one of the most formidable European naval powers to be reckoned with. He has been quite well-known in the Russian VMF as well as at St. Petersburg for being one of Russia's iconic naval cities, Russia cultural center & the former capital city of Russia.  Tier VI – Izmail Named after Siege of Izmail. It was a military campaign led by none other than Generalissimo Prince Alexander Suvorov to besieged Izmail during the Russo-Turkish War 1787 - 1792 & dealt a killing blow to the Ottoman Empire at Kinburn, Ochakov & Foscani with the Black Sea fleet led by a certain Spanish admiral - Jose de Ribas. In that war, came with the slogan "Grom pobedy, razdavaysya!" (Let the thunder bring the sound of victory) to be commemorated as a Day of Military Honor. Tier VII – Sinop Named after the Battle of Sinop, of which was Russia's most earthshaking naval campaign against the Turkish forces of the Ottoman Empire at Sinope during the Crimean War, where the Imperial Russian Navy utilized high-explosive shells of Piaxhans guns for the first time in history, effectively evolved the naval warfare doctrines since then. Prior to Sinop the standard naval armament were smoothbores that fired cannonballs, shot, shrapnel or other projectiles. Piaxhans guns were slowly being integrated into navies but only the French, Russian and American navies had made a comprehensive effort. These batteries represented a clear evolution in naval technology that broke through the final ceiling of the Age of Sails. Tier VIII – Vladivostok Named after one of the Russian VMF's historic & strategically-important port cities - Vladivostok. Its naval fortress complex has hardly been attacked & remained unscathed throughout from WWI to WWII & beyond despite being heavily fortified & was already prepared to fend off a large wave of invading naval forces, particularly against the Imperial Japanese Navy. Tier IX – Sovetsky Soyuz Literally the Soviet Union itself. The lead ship was named as such & the rest of the ambitious number of 15 ships were all to be laid down to be named after all fifteen Soviet republics, with each ship representing a Soviet republic of the USSR - Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Turkmenistan & Tajikistan. Those were all once under the Russian Empire - except Finland, which broke away & declared independence from the Russian Empire since 1917 when the Bolshevik Revolution broke out. Tier X – Kreml Whilst the namesake given, Kreml, tends to associate with the Moscow Kremlin - the central administrative government complex of the USSR & modern Russia by many. If anyone understand Russian language, Kreml is, in fact, a fortress complex. Unironically, this Soviet Leviathan represents as a cruising/floating fortress with not only being the tankiest, most resilient BB of all with the highest HP, armor & torpedo protection parameter to tank torps better than anyone; but also stands out for having the most powerful naval armaments comparable to Yamato & has 2nd most powerful AA capability comparable to Montana. 
  16. Bfoster19955

    Skills for Chapayev and Dmitri Donskoi

    So i finally obtain the Moskva a few days ago(took me some time to get use to the new ship but manage to get a few matches breaking 100k dmg) so now i'm planning to have designated captains for Chapayev and D.Donskoi because i enjoy taking them to sea. However i am unsure what skills would be relevant for both ships. The image is the skills i have so far for my designated Donskoi captain. Not sure if other skills should be chosen in place of the ones that i have so far. And with the change to the AA, not sure if its possible to add a AA skill to the captain to help with air defence. For my upgrades i have MAM1, Survallence Radar Mod 1, Aiming Systems Mod 1, Steering Gears, Concealment and Gunfire Control Mod 1. Also plan to use the same captain skills for Chapayev captain. Needs some assistance. Would be greatly appreciated.
  17. As a someone who primarily plays BBs, I've always kept an eye on the development and eventual introduction of new BB lines to the game. As of right now, off the top of my head, there seem to be actual ships available to fill several yet to be introduced lines, including: a British 2nd BB or battlecruiser line, a German battlecruiser line that might have no actual ships to fill in at above tier 8, a Japanese 2nd BB line featuring ships cancelled by the treaties and/or those that couldn't be built (like the replacement for the Kongos), an Italian BB line, and maybe just maybe a Russian/Soviet BB line. Out of all of those lines, I find the Russian/Soviet line to be the most elusive and potentially tricky to implement obviously due to historical facts and circumstances. But considering WG's background, I doubt a Russian/Soviet BB line is something they would be willing to give up on easily. (Unless they wanna go down the free xp or pay to win route ) As player, I think having such tech tree line might add good and welcomed content to the game, as BBs are relatively rare in comparison to smaller ships in history. It seems that some of the previous discussions on the forums and online on this topic point to a tree that roughly works out like this: Tier 3 - some variant of a prototype dreadnought or semi-dreadnought (as the Nikolai and ships similar to it might be too strong for tier 3, while Andrei Pervozvanny class pre-dreadnoughts might be too weak?) Tier 4 & 5 - variants or versions of the Gangut and/or Imperatritsa Mariya classes of dreadnoughts in different stages of modernization both historical or speculative Tier 6 - Borodino class battlecruisers: 4x3 356mm main battery and capable of 26.5 knots before modernization Tier 7 - Kronshtadt class battlecruiser, or a version of it: a configuration of the ship that uses 3x2 380mm German guns was mentioned? (it kind of becomes a Russian Gneisenau in game?) Tier 8 - Stalingrad class battlecruiser, or a version of it: it seems that the plan is to make them stand out as fast and having higher DPM than typical BBs in exchange for their marginal armor and smaller gun caliber? Tier 9 - Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship: it'll be the highest HP (60K ston displacement) and tankiest BB at tier 9, although probably also the slowest (28 knots) and a big target for HE spam? Tier 10 - Project 24 battleship (super Sovetsky Soyuz): this could get tricky in regards to the game's meta depending on how the ship's implemented. I've read that the ship is to be the tier 9 ship upgunned with 9x457mm guns, others mention 430mm guns, while others spoke of a design influenced by the Italians? As far as premium ships are concerned: The Novorossiysk (ex Italian battleship Giulio Cesare rearmed with Soviet 305mm guns and AA guns) should be a suitable tier 5 and fairly similar to Italian version of it (maybe with less gun alpha but higher dpm and better aa?) Meanwhile the Arkhangelsk (ex HMS Royal Sovereign) could make a decent tier 6 premium BB as a slower but better armored QE class BB? At tier 8, the Italian (Ansaldo) designed U.P. 41 battleship could also make a decent premium ship. It should be a Littorio class style BB uparmed with 3x3 406mm guns and an inferior torpedo defense system? To me, this rough idea on the line seem to work and I would love to eventually grind this line should it ever become available. But then as you all know, recently the Kronshtadt and Stalingrad have both been introduced into the game as high tier cruisers with some BB traits. That fact alone might signal the scuttling of a full tech tree BB line for the Soviets/Russians in the future. So how do you feel about this? What you think should be WG's proper plan moving forward regarding this? Can a proper Russian/Soviet BB line still work without the Kronshtadt and the Stalingrad? What have you heard about this recently? I'd love to hear from you all but would regret to miss out on this line in game...
  18. Durante un largo tiempo me he dedicado a recolectar información sobre ciertos buques construidos durante, entre, y después de las guerras mundiales y que podrían destacar como candidatos al juego que actualmente nos presenta WG. Traté de meterme en la cabeza de los desarrolladores deduciendo las ecuaciones a partir de las cuales se determina los puntos de vida de cada buque basándose en el deslazamiento de este, aunque como se darán cuenta algunos no concuerdan con los presentados en el juego. Algunas ramas también presentan problemas relacionados con la ubicación de sus buques en el tier adecuado, como es el caso de los destructores franceses e italianos, otros como los cruceros japoneses presentan problemas por la información poco clara respecto a sus desplazamientos en tonelaje, y para el caso de algunos portaaviones, sus valores de HP están calculados basándose en su desplazamiento estándar y no su desplazamiento a plena carga, como en el caso de Kaga. Algunos buques no están situados en el mismo tier en el archivo que en el juego, eso se debe a una diferencia de opiniones personal contra WG. También hay buques que no están dentro de las ramas pero se indican en las tablas o debajo de las ramas mismas, esto se debe a que su ubicación es difícil de decidir. Las ramas están ordenadas por colores y estas incluyen; portaaviones, conversiones a portaaviones, acorazados, cruceros de batalla, grandes cruceros, cruceros, cruceros antiaéreos y destructores. Los asteriscos representan navíos que fueron inventados por el equipo de desarrollo de WG. Las fechas indicadas entre paréntesis indican que el buque es un diseño que nunca se construyó o terminó su construcción y el año indica su fecha de diseño. No se incluyen barcos que pertenezcan a clases ya mencionadas en naciones mas grandes, un ejemplo claro sería el crucero argentino General Belgrano que ya está representado por la clase Brooklyn. Los cuadros de distinto color dentro de las tablas de HP representan tonelajes modificados por WG o por mí haciendo referencia a un incremento del tonelaje original debido a una modernización ficticia del buque. Los nombres de los buques dentro de las tablas de HP que están centrados no obedecen la ecuación principal para la clase, como es el caso de los grandes cruceros que no siguen la ecuación general de los cruceros y por eso tienen una ecuación propia. Lo mismo ocurre con algunas de las naves convertidas a portaaviones, que por su excesivo desplazamiento, tienen una ecuación diferente a la del resto de los portaaviones. Espero sus comentarios y sus críticas. Compartan si lo consideran oportuno o interesante. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1wckrRPErjwJ46erYOaJ1Cx3ycs8AClPx
  19. Just came across a distant picture of this guy... Thought it was all in my imagination as I couldn't find him in any Internet searches for months. In the 1970s and 1980s, there was this well dressed, well mannered, Russian Spokesman who often appeared in the national news to give the Soviet side to a story. In the picture -- 2nd from the left... Thick rim glasses... Looks like a chess player. By chance I was scanning through an historical file and viola.... THERE HE IS. Got any ideas?? He seems to have vanished off the Earth without a trace.
×