Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Whitebuster

Difference in playstyle between Petropavlosk and Alex Nevsky?

13 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

76
[PYK]
Beta Testers
162 posts
2,051 battles

Both cruisers feature high-velocity guns with good AP and a 50 mm icebreaker bow. Their speeds are similar at 36 knots. They both have a large HP pool with all standard cruiser consumables. 

The only difference I see is that Petro has slightly better armor and HP than Alex Nevsky. Despite all their similarities, are they supposed to be played differently as Petro is CA while Nevsky is CL?

I tend to exclusively bow tank with Petro like a Moskva or Stalingrad. Is Nevsky supposed to be played the same way?

Thanks for your suggestions!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,606
[WOLF3]
Members
27,029 posts
23,838 battles

Note that of these 3 RU Cruisers, I have only taken Moskva to PVP.  But looking at their armor profiles...

 

I wouldn't try bow tanking with them despite technically having 50mm icebreakers, only Moskva.  Petropavlovsk and Nevsky?  Not unless you like getting Pen / Citadeled from the bow.  Between Moskva, A.Nevsky, and Petro, only Moskva can reliably bow tank.  A.Nevsky has a 25mm bow and 30mm deck armor.  She should not be trying to tank, but should be played like a Cruiser at range, maneuvering, and firing away.

 

Here's the bow on armor profiles for Moskva, A.Nevsky, Petropavlovsk.

Q3S92Jz.jpg

 

And a view from the sides, again, same order.

Moskva - 50mm deck, 25mm bow, tall, 50mm icebreaker, 50mm upper belt.  But her hull rides high out of the water.

UMQp15d.jpg

 

Alexander Nevsky - 25mm bow, low 50mm icebreaker, 30mm deck armor, 25mm upper belt

oqwYHBu.jpg

 

Petropavlovsk - Similar values to Moskva but note her much lower icebreaker again.  However, she rides so low, close to the water that WG almost made her a submarine.

DwtZW7Y.jpg

 

 

And their corresponding Citadels in the same order.

lzLukns.jpgrdgwKGX.jpgUFJXb4H.jpg

 

Moskva has a long tradition of bow tanking like a champ, to the point that even BBs start giving up on her.  But the moment anyone, even another Cruiser at range, gets a glimpse of her sides, she collapses like a house of cards.

 

Petropavlovsk is a poor bow tanker, but I think with her lower riding citadel, 50mm deck armor, 50mm upper belt, with proper use of angling, she can tank pretty well.  But if it's not done right, then people got a clear shot of that Citadel.

 

Alexander Nevsky?  Tanking isn't the order of the day for her.  Long range, WASD Hax, and Prayers to RNG are what she needs defensively.

 

Side note:  I'm personally very annoyed with the bull**** of how Petropavlovsk's freeboard is out of the water.  Meanwhile Real Navies building Real Ships had to keep seakeeping in mind.

Des Moines below.

uiLeNGd.jpg

 

Cleveland-class CL, USS Santa Fe.

1920px-USS_Santa_Fe_(CL-60)_at_sea_on_12

And the same ship through a typhoon.

USS_Santa_Fe_(CL-60)_during_Typhoon_Cobr

But she made it.

 

Allen M. Sumner-class DD, derivative of the Fletchers, USS Waldron.

USS_Waldron_(DD-699)_underway_in_heavy_s

 

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
991
[DPG]
Members
1,922 posts
9,558 battles

I would think that if Petro were real any hard turn would cause it to take on water.  "We built the greatest ship in the history of the world!  Except, maybe don't turn."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,096
[INTEL]
[INTEL]
Members
7,643 posts
34,886 battles
2 hours ago, Amenhir said:

I would think that if Petro were real any hard turn would cause it to take on water.  "We built the greatest ship in the history of the world!  Except, maybe don't turn."

... and sail only in calm seas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,631
[O_O]
[O_O]
Members
4,744 posts
21,499 battles

The seas of fantasy...

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12
[TCCN]
Members
14 posts
6,462 battles

So maybe to bring some realism into the game, if you play the Petro during a cyclone it automatically sinks as soon as visibility hits 8km.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
549
[UN1]
Members
1,212 posts
3,638 battles
5 hours ago, Whitebuster said:

Both cruisers feature high-velocity guns with good AP and a 50 mm icebreaker bow. Their speeds are similar at 36 knots. They both have a large HP pool with all standard cruiser consumables. 

The only difference I see is that Petro has slightly better armor and HP than Alex Nevsky. Despite all their similarities, are they supposed to be played differently as Petro is CA while Nevsky is CL?

I tend to exclusively bow tank with Petro like a Moskva or Stalingrad. Is Nevsky supposed to be played the same way?

Thanks for your suggestions!

Petro plays more like a Moskva/Stalingrad/Alaska (ish) and has great AP for citadel city. Nevsky plays more like a Donskoi/Zao/Hindenburg (ish) where you lob AP/HE shells from afar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
457
[WOLFG]
Members
858 posts

I have both and play them differently.

Nevsky: Play from afar lobbing HE shells for fires.  Move in and move out of concealment when focused.  This ship can not take a hit.  It has very fast moving, low shells so it's easy to hit from a distance.  I always keep this ship moving.

Petro:  This ship can take a hit, but I don't  go looking for it.  This ship has really good AP and can do serious damage on broadside targets.  It's HE is weak.  Again, I move in and out of concealment, but I'm usually looking to take advantage of the AP.

This is just my playstyle.  Others will be different I'm sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,639
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
15,721 posts
7 hours ago, Amenhir said:

I would think that if Petro were real any hard turn would cause it to take on water.  "We built the greatest ship in the history of the world!  Except, maybe don't turn."

That would explain the massive turn radius...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
152
[IMP]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
198 posts
4,557 battles
8 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Side note:  I'm personally very annoyed with the bull**** of how Petropavlovsk's freeboard is out of the water.  Meanwhile Real Navies building Real Ships had to keep seakeeping in mind.

Yes because the Soviet Union totally didn't build cruisers like at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
76
[PYK]
Beta Testers
162 posts
2,051 battles
10 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Note that of these 3 RU Cruisers, I have only taken Moskva to PVP.  But looking at their armor profiles...

 

I wouldn't try bow tanking with them despite technically having 50mm icebreakers, only Moskva.  Petropavlovsk and Nevsky?  Not unless you like getting Pen / Citadeled from the bow.  Between Moskva, A.Nevsky, and Petro, only Moskva can reliably bow tank.  A.Nevsky has a 25mm bow and 30mm deck armor.  She should not be trying to tank, but should be played like a Cruiser at range, maneuvering, and firing away.

 

Here's the bow on armor profiles for Moskva, A.Nevsky, Petropavlovsk.

Q3S92Jz.jpg

 

And a view from the sides, again, same order.

Moskva - 50mm deck, 25mm bow, tall, 50mm icebreaker, 50mm upper belt.  But her hull rides high out of the water.

UMQp15d.jpg

 

Alexander Nevsky - 25mm bow, low 50mm icebreaker, 30mm deck armor, 25mm upper belt

oqwYHBu.jpg

 

Petropavlovsk - Similar values to Moskva but note her much lower icebreaker again.  However, she rides so low, close to the water that WG almost made her a submarine.

DwtZW7Y.jpg

 

 

And their corresponding Citadels in the same order.

lzLukns.jpgrdgwKGX.jpgUFJXb4H.jpg

 

Moskva has a long tradition of bow tanking like a champ, to the point that even BBs start giving up on her.  But the moment anyone, even another Cruiser at range, gets a glimpse of her sides, she collapses like a house of cards.

 

Petropavlovsk is a poor bow tanker, but I think with her lower riding citadel, 50mm deck armor, 50mm upper belt, with proper use of angling, she can tank pretty well.  But if it's not done right, then people got a clear shot of that Citadel.

 

Alexander Nevsky?  Tanking isn't the order of the day for her.  Long range, WASD Hax, and Prayers to RNG are what she needs defensively.

 

Side note:  I'm personally very annoyed with the bull**** of how Petropavlovsk's freeboard is out of the water.  Meanwhile Real Navies building Real Ships had to keep seakeeping in mind.

Des Moines below.

uiLeNGd.jpg

 

Cleveland-class CL, USS Santa Fe.

1920px-USS_Santa_Fe_(CL-60)_at_sea_on_12

And the same ship through a typhoon.

USS_Santa_Fe_(CL-60)_during_Typhoon_Cobr

But she made it.

 

Allen M. Sumner-class DD, derivative of the Fletchers, USS Waldron.

USS_Waldron_(DD-699)_underway_in_heavy_s

 

Thank you for your extensive analysis! Petro seems to have a similar playstyle to BBs like Iowa and North Carolina. I played a few matches with Petro in PVP and its armor feels even more durable than that of BBs when properly angled.

I'm also frowning at Petro's low freeboard. Maybe its design is intended as a semi-submersible...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,606
[WOLF3]
Members
27,029 posts
23,838 battles
58 minutes ago, Whitebuster said:

Thank you for your extensive analysis! Petro seems to have a similar playstyle to BBs like Iowa and North Carolina. I played a few matches with Petro in PVP and its armor feels even more durable than that of BBs when properly angled.

I'm also frowning at Petro's low freeboard. Maybe its design is intended as a semi-submersible...

If the Freeboard was any lower, WG would have to implement Oxygen mechanics like a Submarine for her.

 

4 hours ago, Captain_Rawhide said:

I have both and play them differently.

Nevsky: Play from afar lobbing HE shells for fires.  Move in and move out of concealment when focused.  This ship can not take a hit.  It has very fast moving, low shells so it's easy to hit from a distance.  I always keep this ship moving.

Petro:  This ship can take a hit, but I don't  go looking for it.  This ship has really good AP and can do serious damage on broadside targets.  It's HE is weak.  Again, I move in and out of concealment, but I'm usually looking to take advantage of the AP.

This is just my playstyle.  Others will be different I'm sure.

The CA side of the RU Cruiser Split always emphasized their AP more than their HE.

Moskva & Petro in the Fitting Tool.

Moskva traditionally featured HE mostly, but her AP was quite strong.  Still, the AP was really a sidearm to her HE, to use when an opportunity presented itself.

 

Petro as well as Tallinn, Pyotr Bagration, Riga feature AP.

- Special bounce angles of 50-65 degrees

- Shorter fused AP to Overpen less:  0.022 of a second

 

Moskva's AP is standard:

- Normal 45-60 degrees

- Normal AP fuse time of 0.033 of a second

Here is Zao as an example, you can look up her AP and it has those same two values.  She features traditional AP.

Here is Des Moines as another example of special AP.  All USN CAs feature special bounce angles, even Tier VI Pensacola, DM is no different with 60-67 degrees.  The fuse time is standard at 0.033 of a second.

Tech Tree RNCLs like Minotaur with their AP only focus have special bounce angles (60-75 degrees) and short fuse time (0.005 of a second).

 

Supposedly the RU CAs don't get the true cruiser accuracy at range.

 

Moskva is notorious for burning people up at long range.  Precision was never a problem for her.  She still has railguns and her faster reload than Petro helps emphasize keeping someone lit up even at long range.

Petro's AP Pen is equivalent to Bismarck-class 380mm.  So even a Battleship has to take that into account.  Petro catching a Cruiser on the sides is looking for a Dev Strike.  While Bismarck may have Overmatch advantages that the 220mm guns don't have, she has BB RNG while Petro is on the Cruiser side of accuracy.

14pwzhs.jpg

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,647
[SALVO]
Members
4,395 posts
3,801 battles
8 hours ago, alexf24 said:

... and sail only in calm seas.

Well, that's Baltic/Black Sea Fleets material. Also historicaly, russian ships systematicaly suffered from overweight in regards to their designed tonnage so they ended sitting much lower in the water than intended. In some Battleships it rendered the armored belt almost useless because it ended being mostly underwater. 

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.

×