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

Do Something About Smolensk

13 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

11
[POD]
Members
11 posts
2,067 battles

You can probably guess that an in game encounter made me break and post.

The Smolensk along with many other Russian (Soviet) fever dream paper ships is horrifyingly unbalanced and biased. I really want to rant about each and every single one, but I would like to get this filth nerfed. The main problem with this ship is how with lack of a better word "hypocritically" this ship was designed. The issue that I have with this ship is that it gets to be a American, British, and Soviet cruiser with near to none of the downsides of each nation. Let me explain.

Smolensk has the signature railguns of the Soviet navy, unfortunately for us the guns actually do work (they exist) and can fire at those ridiculous velocities. The problem I have here is that the goddamned ship puts 5.1" guns in four quad mounts and has a 4.5 second reload. The 5/38s from America reload slower, even though they are in TWIN mounts for god's sake! America has been perfecting autoloading over the course of its long and intense war with Japan and has an unfathomable amount of design and construction experience, but the Soviets can start from near scratch in terms of shipbuilding with their ruined coastal cities and produce miracle machinery seemingly from the 21st century. I know that we throw most realism out of the window when we have Hitler's ship porn and everyone else's unbuilt experimental ships, but do you really believe in an alternate 50s or hell 60s the Soviets would be able to pull something like this off. May I add the range is ridiculous, you can pump it past 16km(17?) I believe, while a similar ship with similar guns (Atlanta) can only fire up to about 12. Yeeeessssss they are tiers apart, but this is the closest and best comparison I can make. Does 3 extra tiers justify a 33% range increase on a similarly sized gun (I'm not talking realism, I'm talking game balance btw).

The biggest slap in the face is for lack of a better word, the "hypocrisy" this ship's existence entails. Here's where we make a comparison to the British. The British light cruisers sacrifice HE shells for their smoke, Smolensk is allowed to have very high barrel count with destroyer like reload, high range, smoke, and torpedoes. Sure it has a low hit pool, doesn't change much when battleships have extreme difficulty hitting it and over pen, and any cruiser or destroyer that would get close enough to land hits will probably get molested from behind smoke. Ah I forgot to mention, it has repair anyway. If you've been reading up until now you'll be asking why I haven't mention Worcester, it's because it doesn't have smoke. Oh boo hoo it has radar. Smoke and HE spam, especially with these stats is much more broken than a ship that has to position thoughtfully to land its hits. Smolensk's job is to abuse larger ships anyway, but if it went destroyer hunting it's hydro, torps, and maneuverability along with it's 16 gun salute and higher speed will in most cases make it more effective anyway. Isn't this just a tier 10 Belfast? Belfast will actually take damage from hits and can't maneuver nearly as well, even when proportional to it's tier. Finally, the CVs can't even reliably deal with it due to it's high AA and tendency to stick to the rear of enemy formations.

If you ask me, getting rid of the smoke and nerfing reload would make this an actually interesting foe to fight. In the end, the developers push the idea that this ship like many other Soviet ships would work perfectly to the specifications Stalin wrote down on a napkin when he got horny looking at his navy. If you have any counter points, please make them. Hell I'm open to the idea of having my mind changed. But these fictional ships are pushing me away from the game. Just as quickly as I joined, I'll probably leave this game soon if it's going to continue heading on this disappointing path, my patience is running thin.

-Panther

 

  • Boring 3
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
624
[UN1]
Members
1,280 posts
3,946 battles
20 minutes ago, Pzkpfw_Panther said:

You can probably guess that an in game encounter made me break and post.

The Smolensk along with many other Russian (Soviet) fever dream paper ships is horrifyingly unbalanced and biased. I really want to rant about each and every single one, but I would like to get this filth nerfed. The main problem with this ship is how with lack of a better word "hypocritically" this ship was designed. The issue that I have with this ship is that it gets to be a American, British, and Soviet cruiser with near to none of the downsides of each nation. Let me explain.

Smolensk has the signature railguns of the Soviet navy, unfortunately for us the guns actually do work (they exist) and can fire at those ridiculous velocities. The problem I have here is that the goddamned ship puts 5.1" guns in four quad mounts and has a 4.5 second reload. The 5/38s from America reload slower, even though they are in TWIN mounts for god's sake! America has been perfecting autoloading over the course of its long and intense war with Japan and has an unfathomable amount of design and construction experience, but the Soviets can start from near scratch in terms of shipbuilding with their ruined coastal cities and produce miracle machinery seemingly from the 21st century. I know that we throw most realism out of the window when we have Hitler's ship porn and everyone else's unbuilt experimental ships, but do you really believe in an alternate 50s or hell 60s the Soviets would be able to pull something like this off. May I add the range is ridiculous, you can pump it past 16km(17?) I believe, while a similar ship with similar guns (Atlanta) can only fire up to about 12. Yeeeessssss they are tiers apart, but this is the closest and best comparison I can make. Does 3 extra tiers justify a 33% range increase on a similarly sized gun (I'm not talking realism, I'm talking game balance btw).

The biggest slap in the face is for lack of a better word, the "hypocrisy" this ship's existence entails. Here's where we make a comparison to the British. The British light cruisers sacrifice HE shells for their smoke, Smolensk is allowed to have very high barrel count with destroyer like reload, high range, smoke, and torpedoes. Sure it has a low hit pool, doesn't change much when battleships have extreme difficulty hitting it and over pen, and any cruiser or destroyer that would get close enough to land hits will probably get molested from behind smoke. Ah I forgot to mention, it has repair anyway. If you've been reading up until now you'll be asking why I haven't mention Worcester, it's because it doesn't have smoke. Oh boo hoo it has radar. Smoke and HE spam, especially with these stats is much more broken than a ship that has to position thoughtfully to land its hits. Smolensk's job is to abuse larger ships anyway, but if it went destroyer hunting it's hydro, torps, and maneuverability along with it's 16 gun salute and higher speed will in most cases make it more effective anyway. Isn't this just a tier 10 Belfast? Belfast will actually take damage from hits and can't maneuver nearly as well, even when proportional to it's tier. Finally, the CVs can't even reliably deal with it due to it's high AA and tendency to stick to the rear of enemy formations.

If you ask me, getting rid of the smoke and nerfing reload would make this an actually interesting foe to fight. In the end, the developers push the idea that this ship like many other Soviet ships would work perfectly to the specifications Stalin wrote down on a napkin when he got horny looking at his navy. If you have any counter points, please make them. Hell I'm open to the idea of having my mind changed. But these fictional ships are pushing me away from the game. Just as quickly as I joined, I'll probably leave this game soon if it's going to continue heading on this disappointing path, my patience is running thin.

-Panther

 

They've already taken Smolensk off the market.  They're not going to touch her, and they don't need to anyways.  The ship has a lot of firepower, but it's by no means overperforming.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
964
[PISD]
Members
1,498 posts
5,719 battles

Smolensk is not that bad when you learn to shoot HE at it.

 

my main issue is with some design choice: Somlensk’s turret are a wet dream that would never work, Petro free board would make her a submarine, and her 360 turrets makes no sense...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,183
[O_O]
Members
6,765 posts
16,201 battles

Yep, they should remove it from availability.

Ah, but they already did that, didn't they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
276
[V_V_V]
Members
806 posts
15,985 battles
1 hour ago, Pzkpfw_Panther said:

Just as quickly as I joined, I'll probably leave this game soon if it's going to continue heading on this disappointing path, my patience is running thin.

Yep, this rant is sure to win many hearts and minds with its profane intolerance.  I enjoy battle with my earned Smolensk, win or lose.  I won't miss your departure. 

Edited by Charon2018
add text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11
[POD]
Members
11 posts
2,067 battles
6 minutes ago, Charon2018 said:

Yep, this rant is sure to win many hearts and minds with its profane intolerance.  I enjoy battle with my earned Smolensk, win or lose.  I won't miss your departure. 

@Charon2018 Lol nice to see a long time player using Smolensk, relishing their sacred stats while stomping other players on easy mode. Intolerant how? Please be free to explain any genuine disagreements you have with the points I made previous.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
276
[V_V_V]
Members
806 posts
15,985 battles
42 minutes ago, Pzkpfw_Panther said:

Lol nice to see a long time player using Smolensk, relishing their sacred stats while stomping other players on easy mode. Intolerant how? Please be free to explain any genuine disagreements you have with the points I made previous.

You certainly didn't elaborate on your gameplay encounter in the fine print at the head of your post, did you?  No replay?  Sore loser?  Your essay reads like you haven't done your tactics homework.

Premium Ship Review #132 - Smolensk - General Game Discussion - World of Warships official forum

Rather than waste space here trying to counter your cheap shots to my person, I will defer to the explanations of LWM above.  Perhaps you have the capacity to tolerate her "pros and cons" regarding this ship and how to counter it.  That is, if you choose to persist in battle.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11
[POD]
Members
11 posts
2,067 battles

Skip to the bottom if you are someone else who got "bored" and can't be asked to read. (Why tf are you on the forums then?)

 

@Charon2018 I know I shouldn't need to ask but, did you even read the review?

"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 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 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."

This is the review that should prove Smolensk is balanced? That there's some magical counter I've never heard of before? Oh here they are, 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.

But right before;

Troll armour scheme, with 30mm hull amidships, 50mm citadel roof and a thin armoured belt which prompts frequent AP ricochets and over-penetrations.

And after

 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.

Oh wait I left out some;

  • 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.

Uhhhh, do I need to counter these?

Now then, lets see the pros she outlined:

  • 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.

TLDR:

Look I don't want to completely take away the MG42 you use to massacre everyone else here, all I want is a nerf. You shouldn't be allowed to have an armament that wouldn't work at all, with smoke, torps, def AA or hydro, and then the maneuverability and like Mouse says troll amour scheme.

Btw I find it funny that you said "cheap shots". I'm not the one here using the most easy to play and abusive ship in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
276
[V_V_V]
Members
806 posts
15,985 battles
4 hours ago, Pzkpfw_Panther said:

Btw I find it funny that you said "cheap shots". I'm not the one here using the most easy to play and abusive ship in the game.

Yes, I did my homework after earning Smolensk.  I'm pleased that you at least gave my referred points a degree of consideration.  

I do wonder if you had a Smolensk or other Soviet ships in your fleet, would you be so considerate as to not use them per your alleged "hypocrisy" against the developers, or would you still "abuse" others?  I use Smolensk because I can.  I use any game tool that will give me an advantage over foes.  If  I had an unneutered Kremlin, I wouldn't think twice about "bias" whilst sailing it into battle.

 

16 hours ago, Pzkpfw_Panther said:

If you ask me, getting rid of the smoke and nerfing reload would make this an actually interesting foe to fight.

Still no replay.  If you ask me, you're looking for a cure for the butthurt-not a "slap in the face".

Edited by Charon2018
add text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11
[POD]
Members
11 posts
2,067 battles
3 hours ago, Charon2018 said:

I do wonder if you had a Smolensk or other Soviet ships in your fleet, would you be so considerate as to not use them per your alleged "hypocrisy" against the developers, or would you still "abuse" others?  I use Smolensk because I can.  I use any game tool that will give me an advantage over foes.  If  I had an unneutered Kremlin, I wouldn't think twice about "bias" whilst sailing it into battle.

412070284_Soviettree.thumb.png.624038324a7db00c0e26181e9be554d3.png

I use none actually, I personally don't care for the Soviet navy.

3 hours ago, Charon2018 said:

Still no replay.  If you ask me, you're looking for a cure for the butthurt-not a "slap in the face".

Look I didn't mean to make this personal, I just want something to be done in game to improve it, I'm going after the ship. I was originally going to write a multi-pager on Russian bias but instead I'm at least trying one piece at a time. No I do not have the replay, but maybe you would have a highlight reel that could prove much better how unbalanced the ship is. The unattainable dream is that maybe just maybe the community can do something. That opening bit was satire (which did happen), not evidence.

You want to keep an advantage that now nobody else can get.

Edited by Pzkpfw_Panther

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
276
[V_V_V]
Members
806 posts
15,985 battles
43 minutes ago, Pzkpfw_Panther said:

No I do not have the replay, but maybe you would have a highlight reel that could prove much better how unbalanced the ship is. The unattainable dream is that maybe just maybe the community can do something.

I don't have such evidence; with 216 Random battles played in Smolensk, I have a 41% WR in that ship.  Not exactly candidate support for your bias theory.  You'll have to search elsewhere.

As I am entitled to play that reward ship as currently configured to exploit its benefits, you are as much entitled to not play Soviet ships per personal preference.  I don't have or play a great number of Russian ships myself, because I have many other nationalities' ships to enjoy.

There are other "advantageous" ships operating in game I can't get currently, but I don't campaign for their nerfing.  I also don't begrudge a ship captained by one perhaps better than me.

As a reward ship, Smolensk may or may not get nerfed.  At least you may not see any more in game than already exist.   Good luck with your quest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
202 posts
25 battles

It's a stupid ship that I would be very happy to just be removed but I'm not sure it's that much of a consistent problem any more.

Even as a BB main I generally believe that the HE mechanics are inherently fine but the problem is the rate of fire creep amongst cruisers that started with Worchester compared to the expected fire/minute of earlier top tier ships went further than it was ever extended.

I also don't regret deliberately choosing not to get it with Coal and getting Thunderer and Jean Bart instead. (They have their own balance problems but at least they die if you shoot them)

In the grand scheme of things I don't think it's quite game ruining enough to entirely kill it, the numbers of Smolensk have fortunately been greatly reduced by removing it from the Armoury.
 
The IFHE change to fire chance did hit Smolensk (sometimes? I)

Likewise I believe that the very much work-in-progress proposed captain skill change* with the loss of Basic Firing Training and Advanced Firing Training along with the nerfing of Demolition expert will nerf it further.

I would rather BFT and AFT was more simply worded so it works on the primary guns of Destroyers and secondary guns of everything else.

Demoman does give a bit of this back but I think +10% HE damage counts for less than -10% reload given how fire chance is checked per hit, so BFT is better than Demoman in my eyes.

*See LWM's thread if you haven't already about the proposed Captain Skills if you haven't already and are interested.)

 

Edited by SoothingWhaleSongEU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×