Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
hanesco

New Soviet Cruisers Dispersion

16 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

107
[ARC]
Members
773 posts
9,823 battles

I decided to check the dispersion formula for the new line of Soviet ships, and to my surprise Tallinn has different dispersion formula compared to the other cruisers. Riga and Petropavlovsk use the same dispersion formula as Azuma and Yoshino (IJN large cruisers). Tallinn has worse dispersion than those 2, getting closer to Alaska's dispersion at max range. 

Riga and Petro's dispersion formula is:

R x 9.5 + 15

While Tallinn's dispersion formula I found is:

R x 9.3 + 26

Resulting in the following graphs:

 

502182853_Dispersionsovietvsothercruisers.thumb.png.4574bad3b2bb631d8d16b3a4d5754281.png

https://imgur.com/gallery/RWrBWlT

I included the destroyer formula because all japanese heavy cruisers use it. Kronshtadt and Puerto Rico uses the American/British/German BB dispersion formula that, while it is not there, have even bigger dispersion than the other large cruisers.

Between 10 and 15 km (the new line's "optimal" range), Tallinn has 10% more dispersion than the other members of the line, and 20% more dispersion than all other cruisers.

Would like to ask if this is intentional, or if there is something off about it @LittleWhiteMouse and @Lert

PS. Mikoyan (Tier 5 premium cruiser) seems to use the same dispersion, but I can't adjust it to give me a clean graph. That would explain the wonky dispersion pattern Mouse found in her review. 

Edited by hanesco
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
303
[WOLF5]
Members
895 posts
8,030 battles
7 hours ago, hanesco said:

Riga and Petropavlovsk use the same dispersion formula as Azuma and Yoshino (IJN large cruisers).

I certainly could be wrong and working from obsolete information but at least at one time the Azuma and Yoshino had different dispersion formulae. The formulae I have previously seen are shown below:

Azuma        8.4R + 48

Yoshino      9.5R + 15

Edited by DJC_499

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,782
[INTEL]
Members
12,480 posts
34,650 battles

Thanks for confirming one of the big frustrations with that ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
441
[SUCIT]
Members
1,087 posts
17,851 battles

The new Soviet cruisers don’t exactly use supercruiser dispersion. Their dispersion curve follows more of what RU BBs use, getting less accurate the further away, with great accuracy up close. Close Range, Riga and Petro have more or les DD dispersion, at max range, more like super cruiser dispersion (and can confirm from PTS that unlike RU BBs, dispersion at range actually is wonky and inaccurate) Tallinn and Mikoyan have different dispersion from Riga and Petro as they bridge the gap from light cruisers to heavy cruisers, although Tallinn isn’t affected much due to 12 guns and I think the highest DPM of all the new cruisers, but 6 gun Mikoyan really suffers from this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
107
[ARC]
Members
773 posts
9,823 battles
5 hours ago, DJC_499 said:

I certainly could be wrong and working from obsolete information but at least at one time the Azuma and Yoshino had different dispersion formulae. The formulae I have previously seen are shown below:

Azuma        8.4R + 48

Yoshino      9.5R + 15

It seems they were unified. I used the wiki as reference, and did everything in one night, so I would have to verify that info. I will comment about that after I verify it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
303
[WOLF5]
Members
895 posts
8,030 battles
42 minutes ago, hanesco said:

It seems they were unified. I used the wiki as reference, and did everything in one night, so I would have to verify that info. I will comment about that after I verify it.

Thanks and I had not realized that these dispersion formulae have been unified as it was a big deal at the time that the Azuma got the "Graf Spee-level" of dispersion while the Yoshino's was materially better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
107
[ARC]
Members
773 posts
9,823 battles
4 hours ago, tfcas119 said:

The new Soviet cruisers don’t exactly use supercruiser dispersion. Their dispersion curve follows more of what RU BBs use, getting less accurate the further away, with great accuracy up close. 

Dispersion is lineal (unless WG changed that). Even the new Russian BBs dispersion graph is lineal when using range as a independent variable. The thing that changed is the slope of the line, which is evident in the graph I posted. The original slope (normal dispersion at all ranges) is the one used by cruisers I posted there.

 

4 hours ago, tfcas119 said:

The new Soviet cruisers don’t exactly use supercruiser dispersion. Their dispersion curve follows more of what RU BBs use, getting less accurate the further away, with great accuracy up close. Close Range, Riga and Petro have more or les DD dispersion, at max range, more like super cruiser dispersion (and can confirm from PTS that unlike RU BBs, dispersion at range actually is wonky and inaccurate) Tallinn and Mikoyan have different dispersion from Riga and Petro as they bridge the gap from light cruisers to heavy cruisers, although Tallinn isn’t affected much due to 12 guns and I think the highest DPM of all the new cruisers, but 6 gun Mikoyan really suffers from this.

As I said, unless WG changed dispersion to be something else than lineal, the dispersion pattern used by Riga and Petropavlovsk is the same as Azuma and Yoshino. I used 5 values to get that line (stock, full and Range mod max ranges for Riga; full and Range mod max range for Petro, the same was done for Azuma and Yoshino).

If you see the graph closer at the 4-5 km range, you see IJN supercruiser dispersion is better at close range than all other cruisers, not quite DD dispersion, but it is close. That same dispersion pattern is used by Riga and Petro.

On the other hand, Russian BB dispersion at long range was supposed to be wonky, but WG did something to their vertical dispersion (the one affected for gun parameters, and which dont have a formula to calculate yet) which makes them more accurate than the dispersion at that range would suggest.

Edited by hanesco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,795
[WOLF3]
Members
25,623 posts
22,583 battles
5 hours ago, Taichunger said:

Thanks for confirming one of the big frustrations with that ship.

IIRC from LWM's recent Pyotr Bagration review, the "new" RU 180mm guns hit harder and all that, but they have worse accuracy than the "old" RU 180mm such as on Molotov and Dmitri Donskoi.  But Premium Pyotr Bagration uses the "old," better dispersion.

On 5/23/2020 at 7:35 AM, LittleWhiteMouse said:

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:

  1. Improved AP auto-ricochet angles (50º to 65º)
  2. Short AP fuses (0.022s)
  3. 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:

  1. Pyotr Bagration's AP auto-ricochet angles are further improved over the other Soviet cruisers (55º to 65º)
  2. Pyotr Bagration has the same short AP fuse (0.022s)
  3. 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.

3vuvp3v.png
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.

Q8Z0FhO.png
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
107
[ARC]
Members
773 posts
9,823 battles
18 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

IIRC from LWM's recent Pyotr Bagration review, the "new" RU 180mm guns hit harder and all that, but they have worse accuracy than the "old" RU 180mm such as on Molotov and Dmitri Donskoi.  But Premium Pyotr Bagration uses the "old," better dispersion.

 

 

I think @Taichunger was talking about Tallinn, not Pyotr Bagration. Bagration uses the same dispersion formula as other cruisers (included D. Donskoi and Molotov). That's the reason she feels like a monster, her accuracy and AP penetration are a godsend for those that know how to use them.

I decided to do the analysis for two reasons: A clanmate commented the low damage output of Tallinn, the inconsistency I felt when playing her compared to Bagration and even Riga, and Mikoyan's dispersion mentioned by @LittleWhiteMouse in her review. The results are as I put in the OP, with Tallinn and Mikoyan suffering from a dispersion that is aprox 5% smaller than Large Cruisers and 8% bigger than IJN Large Cruisers. That means Tallinn has to get closer than Riga and Petro to get reasonable accuracy and Mikoyan suffers the same problem as Graf Spee (wonky dispersion at close and medium ranges, thanks to the low number of guns on both). Both these things translate into a lacking of survivability for Tallinn compared to equivalent ships and Mikoyan wasting salvos that make her lose 1v1s.

Edited by hanesco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,795
[WOLF3]
Members
25,623 posts
22,583 battles
7 minutes ago, hanesco said:

I think @Taichunger was talking about Tallinn, not Pyotr Bagration. Bagration uses the same dispersion formula as other cruisers (included D. Donskoi and Molotov). That's the reason she feels like a monster, her accuracy and AP penetration are a godsend for those that know how to use them.

I decided to do the analysis for two reasons: A clanmate commented the low damage output of Tallinn, the inconsistency I felt when playing her compared to Bagration and even Riga, and Mikoyan's dispersion mentioned by @LittleWhiteMouse in her review. The results are as I put in the OP, with Tallinn and Mikoyan suffering from a dispersion that is aprox 5% smaller than Large Cruisers and 8% bigger than IJN Large Cruisers. That means Tallinn has to get closer than Riga and Petro to get reasonable accuracy and Mikoyan suffers the same problem as Graf Spee (wonky dispersion at close and medium ranges, thanks to the low number of guns on both). Both these things translate into a lacking of survivability for Tallinn compared to equivalent ships and Mikoyan wasting salvos that make her lose 1v1s.

Oh, what I said was also meant for Tallinn.  The part about the new RU 180mm guns having worse accuracy, and it seems Taichunger isn't having fun with that.  I'd imagine this being quite true if trying to play them like you did the old, traditional RU Cruisers - Extreme long range.

 

Bagration according to LWM, was using the old school Molotov / D.Donskoi dispersion and not the newer, but worse RU CA dispersion.  But Bagration still has the new shell performance perks of the new RU CA shells.  Best of both worlds, she just fires slower and has some trash gun angles.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
107
[ARC]
Members
773 posts
9,823 battles
40 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Oh, what I said was also meant for Tallinn.  The part about the new RU 180mm guns having worse accuracy, and it seems Taichunger isn't having fun with that.  I'd imagine this being quite true if trying to play them like you did the old, traditional RU Cruisers - Extreme long range.

 

Bagration according to LWM, was using the old school Molotov / D.Donskoi dispersion and not the newer, but worse RU CA dispersion.  But Bagration still has the new shell performance perks of the new RU CA shells.  Best of both worlds, she just fires slower and has some trash gun angles.

Not even the new shell performance, but even better than it.

•Ricochet angles for Tallinn/Mikoyan are 50-65°

•Ricochet angles for Bagration are 55-65°

•Ricochet angles for American CAs are 45-67.5° 60-67.5°

•Normal richochet angles for cruisers are 45-60°

That means that, at an angle of 60°, the chance to get ricochets is:

•Tallinn = aprox 67%

•Bagration = 50%

•American CAs = aprox 67% 0% chance

•All other cruisers = 100%

 

As for Tallinn, her problem is one of survivability. She is forced to get closer than Mainz, using the same armor scheme, to get somewhat comparable results. That is a recipe for disaster, as that hull is tanky against cruisers, but not against battleships, specially things like Siegfried, Georgia and Thunderer, with supercruiser and cruiser dispersion formula making their big guns also laser-accurate.

Edited by hanesco
Correction because of wiki values being wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36,956
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
11,924 posts
9,792 battles

The 180mm ships breakdown as follows:

  • Dmitri Donskoi, Kirov, Molotov, Alexander Nevsky and Pyotr Bagration use the standard cruiser dispersion.  [ Range x 6.9 + 33 ]
  • Tallinn and Mikoyan share their dispersion woes.  They appear to have the same dispersion over distance. [ Range x 9.3 + 26 ] or so as discussed here.
6 minutes ago, hanesco said:

•Ricochet angles for American CAs are 45-67.5°

American heavy cruisers have a 60º to 67.5º auto-ricochet angle.  At a perfect 60º angle, they are not going to ricochet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
107
[ARC]
Members
773 posts
9,823 battles
8 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

American heavy cruisers have a 60º to 67.5º auto-ricochet angle.  At a perfect 60º angle, they are not going to ricochet.

Oh, I was thinking those values were strange (I got them from the wiki). So, yeah, gonna correct them. Thanks Mouse.

Well, my question with this post was more related to why that difference exists between ships that are in the same line? I know the Japanese line is other line with inconsistent dispersion as you grind, but this is not common. Unless they tested Tallinn with IJN Supercruiser dispersion (the one Riga and Petro uses) and was found out to be OP...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36,956
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
11,924 posts
9,792 battles
2 minutes ago, hanesco said:

Oh, I was thinking those values were strange (I got them from the wiki). So, yeah, gonna correct them. Thanks Mouse.

Well, my question with this post was more related to why that difference exists between ships that are in the same line? I know the Japanese line is other line with inconsistent dispersion as you grind, but this is not common. Unless they tested Tallinn with IJN Supercruiser dispersion (the one Riga and Petro uses) and was found out to be OP...

There is very (VERY) little consistent between the Soviet 180mm guns.  I should make a table to show all of the weirdness between them.  I think only Dmitri Donskoi and Molotov actually share the same performance on a per-shell fired basis (even then they're different on range, reload, etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
107
[ARC]
Members
773 posts
9,823 battles
1 hour ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

There is very (VERY) little consistent between the Soviet 180mm guns.  I should make a table to show all of the weirdness between them.  I think only Dmitri Donskoi and Molotov actually share the same performance on a per-shell fired basis (even then they're different on range, reload, etc).

I remember you said this in your Bagration review. And Molotov was promoted as a Kirov with Donskoi gun performance (or you mentioned that in your review) back in 2016, so I knew. 

So far, I know that there are 6 (!) different performance pattern for 180mm Soviet guns, as Nevsky's guns are (again) different than any other 180mm cruiser. That could be atributted to Soviet experiments with that caliber, wanting a performance on par with 203mm guns. But the differences between them are not only thanks to that, as some WG exclusive stats (dispersion, Krupp, autobounce angles, etc.) are involved too.

PS. I got around to see the specifications of the mentioned guns, so here we go:

 163470649_180mmcruisers.thumb.png.4b5e5bd74bf4473eab2f1cbd1cec1391.png

https://imgur.com/a/vyZzfQH

As mentioned by you, everything is a mess.

  • Nevsky supposedly uses the same shell as Dmitri Donskoi and Molotov, but that is only true for shell damage and shell mass. Her shell's Air drag and Krupp stats are better, meaning they reach any given range faster and get better penetration than Donskoi's shells. That is influenced by her muzzle velocity (1000 m/s) too, courtesy of a longer barrel.
  • Horizontal dispersion and Autobounce angles were already commented.
  • Fire chance is the only thing that is homogeneous depending on shell type, with the "32" shell getting 13% and the "33" shell getting 11%.
  • The denomination MK-X-180 doesn't influence any stat of the guns, it's just refers to the external appereance of the turret. Kirov, Molotov and Tallinn use the same turret, the same can be said for P. Bagration and D. Donskoi. All have a 8.00°/s turret rotation, with the only outliers being Pyotr Bagration (which was nerfed from 8.0°/s to 6.0°/s in the name of balance) and Alex Nevsky which uses a modern, dual purpose guns (10.0°/s).
  • In terms of penetration (source: https://wowsft.com/arty), Tallinn has a huge advantage, getting close to A. Nevsky performance at almost any range (218mm at 15 km). Mikoyan here is a winner too, getting comparable penetration to P. Bagration (aprox 205mm at 15 km). Behind them lags D. Donskoi and Molotov (174mm at 15 km) and further behind Kirov (127mm at 15 km).
Edited by hanesco
Mistake in data.
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×