Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Fr05ty

Fr05ty's ADLA attempt: Sovetskiy Soyuz class Battleship

24 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

520
Members
508 posts
4,378 battles

 

Hello and welcome again! Yet again I'm copying dseehafer (with his permission) to post an ADLA based on his format. Remember that this is just a study on how to implement the Sovetskiy Soyuz class Battleships in the game. As always, I know that this might prove controversial and opinions will be split. Everybody's welcome to comment, critique and provide their opinions but please just keep it civil :)

 

Sovetskiy Soyuz class Battleship

regytju776.jpg

Figure 1 - 3D Rendering of the Sovetskiy Soyuz class

The Sovetskiy Soyuz (Soviet Union) class of battleships were the Soviet answer to the German battleships of the late 1930’s, they were designed to be capable of engaging and defeating the Bismarck class, they were known as Projekt 23. By the time they were finally laid down, their design would’ve marked them as rivals to the Imperial Japanese Navy’s Yamato class and the United States Navy Montana class. Their design process started in 1935 but the requirements for the ship were changed so many times that the initial concept for the battleship bore little resemblance to the end design. The ship evolved from a 42,000 ton battleship resembling the Italian Littorio class with 16” guns to a 55,000 ton battleship mounting nine 18” guns and capable of making 36kts. These designs were rejected and due to the Anglo-Soviet Quantitative Naval Agreement of 1937, the battleship’s design had to be reevaluated. The battleship was redesigned over half a dozen more times until a final design was approved in 1941.

The 1941 design is the design upon which this ADLA will be talking about, a massive 65,000 ton behemoth that was the whimsy of Premier Stalin’s desire. Stalin had so much of a hand in getting these battleship designs approved and off the ground that they were also known as “Stalin’s Republics”, a play on the names of the ships which would each carry the name of a Soviet republic. These ships would’ve been so massive that the Soviet Union would have been unable to produce all of the required materiel for them. The Soviet steel industry could not produce Krupp Cemented Armour thicker than 230mm when 420mm plates were required for the Sovetskiy Soyuz; the turbines to power them had to be bought from other countries and then replicated in the USSR and finally the armament was of a scale that hadn’t been until then attempted in Soviet naval history. This resulted in the ships having a quite difficult birth, with 4 of them laid down in 1938 but with not much work being accomplished due to the above problems. With the German invasion in 1941, all work was stopped on building these ships and never resumed. Up to that point, the turbine system, underwater protection and main armament had been undergoing testing.

All hope of these 16 ships forming the core of the Soviet fleet perished with Stalin, the Soviets would not attempt to build any ships with big guns ever again after his death. The age of the battleship had passed, but the Sovetskiy Soyuz could have been the most ambitious naval project ever tackled.

The Sovetskiy Soyuz would have to be implemented as a truly massive battleship. I have done the following analysis assuming that the Sovetskiy Soyuz class would be slotted in the game as a Tier 10 Battleship for the Soviet Navy, possibly the last ship in the Soviet Navy's Battleship line. For reference, I have created this based on the last iteration of the Sovetskiy Soyuz project.

 

Weight

65,150 tonnes – 87,785 HP

67,000 tonnes – 89,970 HP

This would make it one of the heaviest battleships in the game, only being lighter than the Yamato, the Montana and the Grosser Kurfurst. It is heavier than the Friedrich der Grosse by 3,195 tonnes. It’s a massive ship that can work at tier 9 or even tier 10 with great armour. The designed full load displacement was 65,150 tons, however studies in 1940 determined that the full load displacement would have been over 67,000 tons. I’d suggest using the larger number.

 

Armour

Belt: 420-375mm, 230-180mm closing bulkheads

Bulkheads: 365-285mm

Deck: 155mm + 50mm + 20mm

Barbettes: 425mm (primary), 100-65mm (secondary)

Conning Tower: 425mm (fore), 220mm (aft), 250mm roofs

Turrets: 495mm (face), 230mm (sides and roof)

Underwater: 8.2m deep, 123m long Pugliese, 33m American, 35mm + 10mm transverse bulkhead

The armour of the Sovetskiy Soyuz would be the thickest armour present in-game, overtaking the Yamato’s 410mm. Although in reality the Soviet steel factories could not produce Krupp Cemented Armour thicker than 230mm and so the Sovetskiy Soyuz would have two plates together to form the 420mm armour, therefore reducing its effectiveness and making it weaker than the Yamato’s and more on par with the Bismarck. It says quite a bit that the Sovetskiy Soyuz carries 23,306 tons of armour compared to the Yamato’s 23,262 tons on a smaller displacement.

The Sovetskiy Soyuz armour arrangement was quite strange in that the front of the ship was more heavily armoured than the aft, with the belt being 420mm at its thickest in the prow and 375mm at its thickest in the aft. Additionally, the Sovetskiy Soyuz has a weakness in the form that the citadel is closed off by relatively thin bulkheads of 230mm and 180mm which can be a source of citadel hits when angled front on to threats. The underwater protection system was not particularly good for the ship, with the Pugliese system being more inefficient than the American system of multiple bulkheads. Overall, the Sovetskiy Soyuz would have very good all-around armour since the quality of the steel is not taken into account in the game. Definitely tier 10 standard.

 

Main Battery

3x3 406mm/50 B-37 (16”) guns

The Sovetskiy Soyuz class had nine 16” guns mounted on 3 triple turrets. These guns, the 406mm/50 B-37s had the typical Soviet characteristics, having high muzzle velocities at the expense of gun barrel life and relying on this high muzzle velocity to ensure great armour piercing qualities and range. The B-37s fired a 1,108kg shell at a muzzle velocity of 830m/s which would grant it similar kinetic energy than the super heavy shells fired by the 16” guns of the Montana and almost as much kinetic energy as the 420mm guns of the KMS. The very high muzzle speed would mean that long range shots would be quite comfortable when compared to the other battleships as the time the shells take to the target would be lower. In reality, the high muzzle-velocity of these guns meant that they were noted to have dispersion issues although as we know from the guns on the Kirov which also were noted for having dispersion issues, this is something that WG is comfortable fudging to ensure balance. It is interesting to note that these guns were built to fire at a muzzle velocity of 830m/s but after the firing trials, it was recommended to increase the muzzle velocity to 870m/s (which would’ve caused even greater dispersion issues). The increase in muzzle velocity would be an easy buff to the Sovetskiy Soyuz if its guns were to underperform at tier 10.

The Sovetskiy Soyuz battleships would have carried 9 of the 406mm/50 B-37 guns which by itself would sound underpowered for tier 10, however these guns had a ROF of 1.75-2.6 rounds per minute. If we assume the best case scenario of 2.6 rounds per minute, the 9 guns suddenly sound a lot more feasible and would provide a very welcome bonus for the firepower of the ship when fighting bow-on to enemies as they’d be able to put in more shots per minute in a front-on battle than any other battleship. Should you try to fight using all your guns at the same time, then your damage per broadside would trail that of the other tier 10 battleships, but with the increased ROF the overall DPM would be comparable. The performance of the 406mm/50 B-37 guns would be of 5,400 damage and 40% chance of causing a fire when firing HE and 13,300 damage when firing AP if using the muzzle velocity of 830m/s or 13,600 damage when firing AP if using the muzzle velocity of 870m/s.

The turrets themselves allowed for a gun elevation of 45 degrees which allowed for a firing range of 45.6km which would most likely be represented by an in-game range of ~24km and they rotated at 4.55 degrees per second, giving a turret rotation time of 39.6s per 180 degrees. The fast turret rotation, great shell ergonomics, range and fast ROF certainly places the Sovetskiy Soyuz’s main battery at tier 10 standard.

 

Secondary Battery

6x2 152mm/57 B-38 (6”) guns, 6x2 100mm/56 B-34 (3.9”) DP guns

Proposed improvement: 6x2 152mm/57 B-38 (6”) guns, 6x2 100mm/70 CM-5 (3.9”) DP guns

The secondary armament of the Sovetskiy Soyuz is representative of the time when her design was being carried out, with a mixed battery of 6” secondaries to engage surface targets and 4” guns to serve as DP weapons. This is nothing new at tier 10 and is already present in both the Yamato and the Grosser Kurfurst, however the guns that were chosen for this design are somewhat lacking as the 100mm/56 B-34 are the same guns used in the secondary battery of the Kirov. The 152mm/57 B-38 guns are the same that are mounted on the light cruisers of the soviet branch, from the Budyonny up to the Chapayev and would fire at 7.5 rounds per minute. The 100mm guns would be the same as the Kirov’s secondaries, firing 15 rounds per minute.  We have seen that WG has altered certain weapon layouts in previous ships slightly when it was required, and I’d advocate for the DP guns to be changed for those of a newer model, more precisely being those used by the Dmitri Donskoi. The 100mm/70 CM-5 DP guns used by the Dmitri Donskoi have a similar performance than the 100mm/56 B-34 used by the Kirov (but their AA capabilities differ drastically). Either way, the secondary battery would be fine at the tier.

 

800px-Sovetsky_Soyuz_class1.jpg

AA Battery

6x2 100mm/56 B-34 DP guns (59dps @5km), 10x4 37mm/67 46-K guns (122dps @3.5km)

Proposed improvement: 6x2 100mm/70 CM-5 DP guns (117dps @5km), 10x4 45mm SM-20-ZIF guns (207dps @3.5km), 12x4 25mm 4M-120 guns (101dps @3.1km)

The AA suite that the Sovetskiy Soyuz was meant to carry is unfitting of a tier 10 battleship, if anything, it might be appropriate for a tier 6 battleship. This reflects the date of her design, which was before it was realized that aircraft would play such a prominent role in naval warfare and thus anti-air armament was a secondary matter in battleship design. To ensure that the Sovetskiy Soyuz would be competitive at the higher tiers, WG would need to improve her AA drastically. My proposed changes would be that the 100mm/56 B-34 DP guns be changed for the 100mm/70 CM-5 DP guns from the Dmitri Donskoy, the 37mm/67 be replaced by the 45mm SM-20-ZIF guns used by the Moskva and an additional set of 25mm guns be added. If the Sovetskiy Soyuz carried all this armament she would have a decent AA suite, better than the Yamato but worse than the Grosser Kurfurst and the Montana. Overall, tier 6 AA suite if unupgraded, tier 10 AA if something akin to my proposed AA suite is implemented.

 

Speed

28kts – 201,000hp

The Sovetskiy Soyuz had a massive powerplant to be able to propel such a full-bodied hull at a decent speed with 201,000hp providing the Sovetskiy Soyuz with a speed of 28kts. This would make it the second slowest battleship at tier 10, being faster than Yamato by a full knot. It was possible to overload the powerplant to achieve a full knot faster than the designed speed and it might be that WG could choose that top speed of 29kts should they feel it’s too sluggish. It would very likely have a decent turn radius. It would seem that 28kts is just fine for a tier 10 battleship.

 

Consumables

The Sovetskiy Soyuz would have the standard tier 10 battleship Damage Control Party (15s duration), the Standard Repair Party and 4 charges of the Spotting Aircraft consumable.

 

Conclusion

The Sovetskiy Soyuz was meant to be the Soviet response to the Yamato and it might just deliver on that promise. The Sovetskiy Soyuz is lighter than any other tier 10 battleship by a full 5,000 tons but it has more armour on it than any other tier 10 battleship. Its belt armour can reach up to 420mm of thickness which is 10mm more than the Yamato can boast and curiously, its armour is concentrated in the bow, just like its armament. The Sovetskiy Soyuz is by no means unarmoured in the aft, but its belt thickness drops to 380mm and thus it is just a little bit easier to penetrate. Additionally, while its broadside firepower may not seem very impressive, the ROF of its guns compensates this with sheer DPM and should you ever want to present a very tough and menacing target to an enemy, you just need to point your heavily armoured bow to them and blaze away with your frontal turrets; no other ship can match the sustained amount of firepower you can deliver with your front guns. The Sovetskiy Soyuz suffers from being a rather large and fat ship which limits its speed and it has a weak underwater protection system making it a prime target for torpedoes. Furthermore, its low speed means that it will not be capable of outrunning anybody once it engages and trying to flee would expose the weaker armour on the rear which might lead to more punishment from the enemy. The secondary armament for the Sovetskiy Soyuz is decent though not spectacular, it is certainly better than the Montana’s but not quite as good as the Yamato’s or the Grosser Kurfurst’s. Finally, the biggest issue with the Sovetskiy Soyuz is her AA suite; if she were to be implemented as designed then she would be severly lacking in the AA department as it is more suited to a tier 6 or 7 battleship than at tier 10. I doubt this would pose much of a hindrance to WG as they’re known for buffing or nerfing AA suites in order to ensure balance and I’ve provided a modest proposal that might work as a guideline.

In conclusion, the Sovetskiy Soyuz was the Soviet answer to the Yamato, with over a dozen of these ships to be built as a sign of Soviet power. Individually, each Sovetskiy Soyuz would have been a tough to break brick, with great armour, good high-velocity guns and a massive size. In-game, these ships would rely on their weapon placing and good ROF to present its armoured prow to the enemy, giving the enemy a small and very tough target to shoot at while the frontal turrets dealt the damage back. I’m confident that with the AA buff, it will find itself with a decent AA suite that will ensure the Sovetskiy Soyuz fits right in at tier 10. A heavyweight soviet ship dishing it out with the best the world had to offer.

 

Pros

  • Excellent belt and deck armour
  • Excellent gun ergonomics
  • Fast rotating turrets
  • Good secondary armament
  • Somewhat maneuverable
  • Extensive anti-torpedo bulge

Cons

  • Slow
  • Slightly fragile turrets
  • Smaller hitpoint pool than other tier 10 battleships
  • Weak torpedo defense system
  • Weak AA suite (would need buffing)
  • Weak salvo alpha

 

shema-sovetskiy-soyuz.png

 

Edited by Fr05ty
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
520
Members
508 posts
4,378 battles

If a premium, I would buy.

 

Can't be a premium as it is Tier 10. This would be the last ship in the Soviet Battleship line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,921
Alpha Tester, Alpha Tester
11,461 posts
1,963 battles

It would probably be easiest to split it into Project 23 and Project 24, with the former at tier IX and the latter at tier X. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
520
Members
508 posts
4,378 battles

It would probably be easiest to split it into Project 23 and Project 24, with the former at tier IX and the latter at tier X. 

 

Couldn't find much on Project 24 to be honest, if you'd be so kind as to provide links to information about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,053
[SYN]
Members
16,027 posts
12,803 battles

AFAIK, from the very, very limited, stuff I could find about Pr.24, it was a Pr.23 that was one size larger, but retained the same size and number of guns.

What exactly the extra size was for? not a clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,782
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
6,749 posts
15,644 battles

AFAIK, from the very, very limited, stuff I could find about Pr.24, it was a Pr.23 that was one size larger, but retained the same size and number of guns.

What exactly the extra size was for? not a clue.

 

Bigger Vodka tanks for longer cruises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
422
Members
1,947 posts
8,913 battles

Very well thought out and informative, but some of your numbers for in game stats seem to be conjectures and I am curious what goes into these? Also HP is very dependent on whether it's a T9 or T10. The AA, while lacking should be fine with proposed improvements.

 

Of course this is all moot, thanks to Russian Bias it will have super-Stalinium shells, 150k hp, and USN level AA, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,662
[CALM]
Beta Testers
6,838 posts
6,088 battles

I'm looking forward to this ship and the T10, Project 24 for now, as both are going to be trollworthy with high armor, even if they're undergunned.  Basically, researchable Nikolais but at T9 and T10.  They're also going to be blatantly OP unless WG is willing to bend towards balancing enough that these two would suffer from horrible AA and TDS as they were designed (basically, take Kurfurst's armor resilience but anemic AA/TDS and skew it further towards even more armor but even worse AA/TDS).

 

As far as Project 24 goes, it's an upgraded Project 23 with more armor and AA, but otherwise uses the same main guns, though the devs mentioned there were other Project 23 variants they could use for T10.  Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if one of those was a Russian Montana (Russian Kurfurst really; just better armor and shorter length but similar fast traverse and RoF and similar horrible TDS).

 

Here's one image I've seen across the WoWs forums on Project 24, though I cannot attest to its accuracy or validity, as its origins was from some German source.

eFPeiTz.jpg

 

The way I see it, Project 24 could either get the semi-fantasy 18" mains planned for Project 23 or get the higher velocity (870m/s) 16" mains over Project 23.  RoF and the turret traverse would be lower for the 18" for balance and semi-historical reasons (increased gun weight assuming no armor removed or added onto P.24's turrets), but the 16" would be the same RoF as Project 23's with similar traverse (or slightly slower traverse assuming more armor on the turrets).

 

They'd be the strongest tanks, and somewhat undergunned (at least, the 16" variant at T10), but able to shrug off most frontal assaults with ease, only losing out to CVs and destroyers due to poor TDS and AA.  Of course, allowing an enemy battleship to catch their aft would also be dangerous, given the armor focus towards the bow, but most players would be playing Project 23/24 like Yamato/Dunkerque/NC anyway, and hanging back until most of the smaller threats were dealt with before they just stroll into the playground and bully cruisers and most battleships.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
520
Members
508 posts
4,378 battles

Very well thought out and informative, but some of your numbers for in game stats seem to be conjectures and I am curious what goes into these? Also HP is very dependent on whether it's a T9 or T10. The AA, while lacking should be fine with proposed improvements.

 

Of course this is all moot, thanks to Russian Bias it will have super-Stalinium shells, 150k hp, and USN level AA, etc.

 

If you'd like to clarify what are the conjectures you're talking about I'd be quite happy to explain.

 

Hp is independent of tier, it is wholly dependent on the tonnage of the ship

Edited by Fr05ty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39
[T_D_F]
Beta Testers
173 posts
16,990 battles

I think we all know how this is going to go. Likely will include revisions as suggested, placing it at tier 9. Tier 10 will be a fantasy project 24 type, with 18" guns, massively effective AA, and torpedo protection to rival the Yamato. Because clearly, only the Russians can have a ship that competes with the Yamato directly. All others are weak, puny, bourgeois failures. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,889
[HINON]
Members
7,797 posts
2,144 battles

Holy...

 

That's no moon!

 

Seriously, how much vodka was drunk during the designing of this vessel XD

 

 

IX and X respectively, definitely.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
332
Beta Testers
2,580 posts
4,750 battles

 The way I see it, Project 24 could either get the semi-fantasy 18" mains planned for Project 23 or get the higher velocity (870m/s) 16" mains over Project 23.  RoF and the turret traverse would be lower for the 18" for balance and semi-historical reasons (increased gun weight assuming no armor removed or added onto P.24's turrets), but the 16" would be the same RoF as Project 23's with similar traverse (or slightly slower traverse assuming more armor on the turrets).

 Devs have all but ruled out the 18" variant.

I think most likely would be T9 Proj 23 with muzzle velocity, RoF & AA at the low end of possible range, T10 Proj 24 with upper end muzzle velocity, RoF, much improved AA & TDS (testing showed US system was better too late to switch Proj 23)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,168
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
9,312 posts
18,896 battles

 

If you'd like to clarify what are the conjectures you're talking about I'd be quite happy to explain.

 

Hp is independent of tier, it is wholly dependent on the tonnage of the ship

 

Can't be any more. I believe the G. Kuerfuerst was tested at 88k hp, and now it's released at 105k HP.

 

It didn't grow any displacement, WG used displacement as a balance. They also presumably did when they nerfed Kiev back in the day, only nerfed or un-nerfed Kiev can match the formula, not both.

 

I was excited by the formula when you produced it and I think it's a good rule of thumb, but WG will balance. Especially a recent example of high tier battleships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,791
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles

 

 

Can't be any more. I believe the G. Kuerfuerst was tested at 88k hp, and now it's released at 105k HP.

 

It didn't grow any displacement, WG used displacement as a balance. They also presumably did when they nerfed Kiev back in the day, only nerfed or un-nerfed Kiev can match the formula, not both.

 

I was excited by the formula when you produced it and I think it's a good rule of thumb, but WG will balance. Especially a recent example of high tier battleships.

 

GK in game weighs 80,058t. If we run those numbers through Fro5ty's formula we get 10988 + (80,058t x 1.1769) = 105,208

 

So WG had originally nerfed her hitpoints but after testing gave her the hitpoints that she would have with the formula.

 

But yes, WG will balance anything they feel needs balancing, so Fro5ty's formula isnt infallible... but If WG follows their own rules then it is very accurate indeed.

Edited by dseehafer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
520
Members
508 posts
4,378 battles

I think we all know how this is going to go. Likely will include revisions as suggested, placing it at tier 9. Tier 10 will be a fantasy project 24 type, with 18" guns, massively effective AA, and torpedo protection to rival the Yamato. Because clearly, only the Russians can have a ship that competes with the Yamato directly. All others are weak, puny, bourgeois failures. 

 

Could we please stop with all this "russian bias" nonsense? I'm trying to show how WG could do a BALANCED tier 10 battleship and your russian bias tropes aren't funny nor constructive.

 

 

Can't be any more. I believe the G. Kuerfuerst was tested at 88k hp, and now it's released at 105k HP.

 

It didn't grow any displacement, WG used displacement as a balance. They also presumably did when they nerfed Kiev back in the day, only nerfed or un-nerfed Kiev can match the formula, not both.

 

I was excited by the formula when you produced it and I think it's a good rule of thumb, but WG will balance. Especially a recent example of high tier battleships.

 

There are exceptions to the formula, namely: Kiev, G. Kurfurst in beta and Colorado which suffered HP nerfs. It seems like WG uses the formula I gave but they are capable of fudging some numbers if they feel it improves balance. My formulas have an accuracy of over 95% which means they are great for estimating (though you won't get perfect numbers due to rounding and balance changes).

I keep track of what are the values that my formulas give for everything compared to what is in-game (even as they get changed) so that I can check if the results are accurate or not. The BB HP formula normally lands within 2% of the in-game HP

Edited by Fr05ty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
486
[QC103]
Beta Testers
1,395 posts
16,457 battles

The ship look great on paper and that's where it should stay is on paper, give us a break.  Stick to nations that HAD navies.  On paper you could make a hamster on a treadmill more dangerous then any tier X.  I totally understand who makes the game and who the #1 customer is, but I have read their forums too, they want Naval Nations in the game too.

Thanks for the great thread OP, not your fault that WG want to sail a paper fleet for their nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
642 posts
782 battles

Ahhh...unless I am mistaken the Russians actually had a design and laid down the hulls for the ships according to the OP. I believe, from what WG has done about historical and/or paper ships that this fact seems to be a reasonable and, frankly, welcome addition to the battleship line. After all, none of us are constrained to PLAY ships only from our own national lines. All the BBs will be available to all players for in game use. If someone feels that the Russian ship has been made OP they can decide for themselves whether to use it or not. I have stuck with the USN lines because I am an American, former USN guy from 1963 and have a bias (naturally) for them but I also own a few IJN, Russian and German ships as well as a Polish and a British one.

 

As for WG doing modifications that were not historical or ones that were never implemented then they do so for game balance. Why? Because if the ships of a single Tier are balanced as closely as possible then...guess what - Player Skill becomes primary factor in the game. I also wonder if any players actually believe that player skill should not be the primary factor in a PVP game? Very few I would think. Any ship which shows up as very over powered in actual game play will, I believe, get its turn in the nerf barrel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
520
Members
508 posts
4,378 battles

The ship look great on paper and that's where it should stay is on paper, give us a break.  Stick to nations that HAD navies.  On paper you could make a hamster on a treadmill more dangerous then any tier X.  I totally understand who makes the game and who the #1 customer is, but I have read their forums too, they want Naval Nations in the game too.

Thanks for the great thread OP, not your fault that WG want to sail a paper fleet for their nation.

 

Ahhh...unless I am mistaken the Russians actually had a design and laid down the hulls for the ships according to the OP. I believe, from what WG has done about historical and/or paper ships that this fact seems to be a reasonable and, frankly, welcome addition to the battleship line. After all, none of us are constrained to PLAY ships only from our own national lines. All the BBs will be available to all players for in game use. If someone feels that the Russian ship has been made OP they can decide for themselves whether to use it or not. I have stuck with the USN lines because I am an American, former USN guy from 1963 and have a bias (naturally) for them but I also own a few IJN, Russian and German ships as well as a Polish and a British one.

 

As for WG doing modifications that were not historical or ones that were never implemented then they do so for game balance. Why? Because if the ships of a single Tier are balanced as closely as possible then...guess what - Player Skill becomes primary factor in the game. I also wonder if any players actually believe that player skill should not be the primary factor in a PVP game? Very few I would think. Any ship which shows up as very over powered in actual game play will, I believe, get its turn in the nerf barrel.

 

Indeed, 4 of these ships (out of 16) had been laid down before Germany invaded. We all accept that some modifications must be done for the sake of flavor and balance, otherwise it'd be impossible to play this as some ships would just be OP. This of course does lead to quirky ships being hard to balance and place in the game.

 

The ship look great on paper and that's where it should stay is on paper, give us a break.  Stick to nations that HAD navies.  On paper you could make a hamster on a treadmill more dangerous then any tier X.  I totally understand who makes the game and who the #1 customer is, but I have read their forums too, they want Naval Nations in the game too.

Thanks for the great thread OP, not your fault that WG want to sail a paper fleet for their nation.

 

I know that using paper ships is not for everybody, but this ones actually started being built and then had work halted on them. I have done ADLAs on both paper and built ships (mostly built ships) but as part of completion I do ships of many nations and those ships that catch my attention. Many more are yet to come.

WG has said that they're going to add Soviet BBs in 2017 and thus I thought I'd go with this ADLA to see just how their (possible) tier 10 would perform. Feel free to disagree with their choice but it will likely make it into the game so we'll have to be prepared.

 

Remember that ADLAs are just an examination of how to implement a ship in-game. This doesn't mean we expect these ships to show up, but rather how they could be implemented in the game. Please stick to the topic of whether the ship would work or not in game, if you like the ship, etc. I know that you might not want X or Y ships in game, but the composition of the future Soviet BB line or how WG decides which paper ships to use isn't what's being discussed here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
486
[QC103]
Beta Testers
1,395 posts
16,457 battles

 

 

Indeed, 4 of these ships (out of 16) had been laid down before Germany invaded. We all accept that some modifications must be done for the sake of flavor and balance, otherwise it'd be impossible to play this as some ships would just be OP. This of course does lead to quirky ships being hard to balance and place in the game.

 

 

I know that using paper ships is not for everybody, but this ones actually started being built and then had work halted on them. I have done ADLAs on both paper and built ships (mostly built ships) but as part of completion I do ships of many nations and those ships that catch my attention. Many more are yet to come.

WG has said that they're going to add Soviet BBs in 2017 and thus I thought I'd go with this ADLA to see just how their (possible) tier 10 would perform. Feel free to disagree with their choice but it will likely make it into the game so we'll have to be prepared.

 

Remember that ADLAs are just an examination of how to implement a ship in-game. This doesn't mean we expect these ships to show up, but rather how they could be implemented in the game. Please stick to the topic of whether the ship would work or not in game, if you like the ship, etc. I know that you might not want X or Y ships in game, but the composition of the future Soviet BB line or how WG decides which paper ships to use isn't what's being discussed here.

 

Like I said, nice thread, I am not blaming you for Russian BBs coming to the game.  I play all nations, I as many others have said in countless threads on many servers stop with paper navies and put in ships from nations with navies, I don't care which nation, France, Italy, UK, USA, Germany or IJN.  The Russian navy was portside for the most part because of their leadership required their manpower other places.  The issue I have with Russian paper ships is we only have their word on what the ship "Would be like"  if they got the information from a third part it would not bother me as much.  But like I said we know who the game is made by and for whom.  Russians lives up to the old say history is written by the victors, no matter if what is written is true or not, and as we have seen in the past, they are not always honest in there views of history.

That's the point I'm trying to make.  Again thank you for the thread. :honoring:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
520
Members
508 posts
4,378 battles

 

Like I said, nice thread, I am not blaming you for Russian BBs coming to the game.  I play all nations, I as many others have said in countless threads on many servers stop with paper navies and put in ships from nations with navies, I don't care which nation, France, Italy, UK, USA, Germany or IJN.  The Russian navy was portside for the most part because of their leadership required their manpower other places.  The issue I have with Russian paper ships is we only have their word on what the ship "Would be like"  if they got the information from a third part it would not bother me as much.  But like I said we know who the game is made by and for whom.  Russians lives up to the old say history is written by the victors, no matter if what is written is true or not, and as we have seen in the past, they are not always honest in there views of history.

That's the point I'm trying to make.  Again thank you for the thread. :honoring:

 

Well, if it makes you feel any better I got all of my data from 3rd parties :)

Weapon shell data from navweaps, general ship info from navypedia, history from wikipedia, and the rest of stuff's from the in-game values and my derived formulas. No Russian bias in my reviews! In fact, I try to be as unbiased as possible and just put forward the data in a readable format.

 

Hope you enjoyed the (albeit massive) read :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,168
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
9,312 posts
18,896 battles

There are exceptions to the formula, namely: Kiev, G. Kurfurst in beta and Colorado which suffered HP nerfs. It seems like WG uses the formula I gave but they are capable of fudging some numbers if they feel it improves balance. My formulas have an accuracy of over 95% which means they are great for estimating (though you won't get perfect numbers due to rounding and balance changes).

I keep track of what are the values that my formulas give for everything compared to what is in-game (even as they get changed) so that I can check if the results are accurate or not. The BB HP formula normally lands within 2% of the in-game HP

Fair enough, 3 exceptions out of 100+ ships aren't many!

 

However the G. Kurfuerst is a good example of a high tier battleship with a fairly big deviation from the formula, so it may be particularly relevant in S. Soyuz's case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
520
Members
508 posts
4,378 battles

Fair enough, 3 exceptions out of 100+ ships aren't many!

 

However the G. Kurfuerst is a good example of a high tier battleship with a fairly big deviation from the formula, so it may be particularly relevant in S. Soyuz's case.

 

The G. Kurfurst was artificially nerfed while on beta as WG supposed it would be too powerful, as it is right now it is exactly where the formula would predict it's HP to be. We have to check what's officially released, not what's in the public beta :)

Like I said, the Kurfurst had the wrong HP prior to release, now it has the right one as we had expected all along (And yes, we had a private discussion amongst some about why there was such a massive disparity between expected HP based on tonnage and actual HP, especially since the armour isn't spectacular to warrant a nerf).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×