Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
MrAnarchy

Stalingrad - Any reason left to play Moskva?

144 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
36 posts
8,215 battles

Played a couple games in Stalingrad and it feels as an upgrade over Moskva. Any reason left to play Moskva? Id like to hear some arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FJAKA]
Players
2,975 posts
477 battles
1 minute ago, MrAnarchy said:

Played a couple games in Stalingrad and it feels as an upgrade over Moskva. Any reason left to play Moskva? Id like to hear some arguments.

same as why play Flatcher when Black is much better.....80% peoples will never gain Black of Stalingrad and that 20% will play upgrade version of silver ships aka Black, Stalin...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
36 posts
8,215 battles
3 minutes ago, veslingr said:

same as why play Flatcher when Black is much better.....80% peoples will never gain Black of Stalingrad

Dont think the comparison is valid entirely because Black has some major downsides: 1) Its slow and 2) it has slow torps which makes it one in a 1/1000 that you're actually gonna land them. That is what turns me off about it and is the reason why I dont play it. Stalingrad on the otherhand suffers similar weaknesses as Moskva and has the same strength only on steroids.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PMI]
Players
2,564 posts
8,176 battles

For me, not having it is a compelling enough reason to play moskva.

 

As how you should have worded it? For you, if you like it more than moskva, then no, no need to play moskva any more, unless you have the permanent camo and want to somehow get your money back in the form of silver or cap-free exp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FJAKA]
Players
2,975 posts
477 battles
1 minute ago, MrAnarchy said:

Dont think the comparison is valid entirely because Black has some major downsides: 1) Its slow and 2) it has slow torps which makes it one in a 1000 that you're actually gonna land them. That is what turns me off about it and is the reason why I dont play it. Stalingrad on the otherhand suffers similar weaknesses as Moskva and has the same strength only on steroids.

DD with radar + smoke is and will always be OP...no matter bad torps, rest of us will play next best thing - flatcher :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLITZ]
Modder
4,708 posts
8,735 battles
7 minutes ago, MrAnarchy said:

Any reason left to play Moskva? Id like to hear some arguments.

If you don't have the steel...

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
36 posts
8,215 battles

Guys, I was obviously asking people who have Stalingrad. I didnt want to word the title: "Hey you select few that have it, argument me this..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JUNK]
[JUNK]
Beta Tester
1,932 posts
8,396 battles

Moskva is way more tanky, mobile, stealthy, has hydro and can focus fire better with HE DPM.

 

So yes I see tons of reasons to play Moskva, especially in CB.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FJAKA]
Players
2,975 posts
477 battles
Just now, MrAnarchy said:

Guys, I was obviously asking people who have Stalingrad. I didnt want to word the title: "Hey you select few that have it, argument me this..."

having or not having Stalingrad answer is easy, no there is no reason to play Moskva over Stalin......only if you like that particular ship and do not care about picking the best ship for its role

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PMI]
Players
2,564 posts
8,176 battles
5 minutes ago, MrAnarchy said:

Guys, I was obviously asking people who have Stalingrad. I didnt want to word the title: "Hey you select few that have it, argument me this..."

 

And yet, that should have been the title if you did not want any other imput but the owners one...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NMA]
Players
1,221 posts
18,470 battles

Yeah, Diversity of game play. Play other ships, Moskva included, so you don't get bored of Stalingrad. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
36 posts
8,215 battles
23 minutes ago, Affeks said:

Moskva is way 1) more tanky, 2) mobile, 3) stealthy, 4) has hydro and 5) can focus fire better with HE DPM.

 

So yes I see tons of reasons to play Moskva, especially in CB.

1) Moskva isnt more tanky as far as I can see. Stalingrad is even better armored on the sides and has the same partial 50mm bow armor. Also it has 7k more hp.

2) Moskva is slightly faster, and turns slightly faster. Not that big of a difference tho.

3) Difference of 0.1km?! I mean okay it makes it stealthier but its insignificant.

4) Significant in CB in my case, but not in randoms because I use deff AA on Moskva. It is good to have a choice, but it is balanced because you can get wrecked by CVs if u chose to equip hydro

5) Moskva has higher ROF, feels more accurate, but Stalingrad decently compensates with 35% fire chance and higher alpha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PANEU]
Players
1,401 posts
14,102 battles
35 minutes ago, MrAnarchy said:

Played a couple games in Stalingrad and it feels as an upgrade over Moskva. Any reason left to play Moskva? Id like to hear some arguments.

Because I will not get Stalingrad any soon :Smile_child:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JUNK]
[JUNK]
Beta Tester
1,932 posts
8,396 battles
2 minutes ago, MrAnarchy said:

1) Moskva isnt more tanky as far as I can see. Stalingrad is even better armored on the sides and has the same partial 50mm bow armor. Also it has 7k more hp.

Yet Stalingrad is much larger and easier to hit, much bigger superstructure so more pens from BB AP and cruiser HE. If youre going into HP then in terms of size-health ratio Stalingrad is worse of. With the same HP calculation that Moskva has Stalingrad would have ~83k HP, but WG gave these ships their own HP calculation. 25mm of belt armor is pretty insignificant against anything but cruiser AP at the longest ranges.

 

4 minutes ago, MrAnarchy said:

2) Moskva is slightly faster, and turns slightly faster. Not that big of a difference tho.

80m turning circle and a couple seconds more rudder, sure not much, but still something of note. Actually Stalingrad is .5 knots faster than Moskva.

5 minutes ago, MrAnarchy said:

3) Difference of 0.1km?! I mean okay it makes it stealthier but its insignificant.

its like 0.2km, but more importantly Air detection is 1.6km worse on Stalingrad, and that is quite significant with all the spotter planes around. Much higher chance people can spot you behind cover outside your radar range.

 

7 minutes ago, MrAnarchy said:

4) Significant in CB in my case, but not in randoms because I use deff AA on Moskva. It is good to have a choice, but it is balanced because you can get wrecked by CVs if u chose to equip hydro

Moskva def AA is much better than Stalingrads, thanks for reminding me.

 

9 minutes ago, MrAnarchy said:

5) Moskva has higher ROF, feels more accurate, but Stalingrad decently compensates with 35% fire chance and higher alpha.

The (marginal) incosistency and more combersome ammunition switching makes it much worse than the raw numbers would indicate

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JUNK]
[JUNK]
Beta Tester
1,932 posts
8,396 battles

Oh yeah, Moskva actually has an LM to grind, so thats a reason to play Moskva haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ICI]
[ICI]
Players
787 posts
4,520 battles

The Russian bias is real with this ship. People warned me about WG for this. But hey, most games in the past I have played from American companies did the same. Altho WG aint Russian but from the Belarus right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
535 posts
6,957 battles

I have Kron and I'am afraid that it have a lot common/same with Kron - if it does than I will never buy it as I hate Kron, but ofc I will never know because I don't want another big disappointment for me - and you on't have any way to try in, it would be nice if WG would implement some of those premiums in PTS so we can try it before we buy it, that would be very nice....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
36 posts
8,215 battles
1 minute ago, Affeks said:

Yet Stalingrad is much larger and easier to hit, much bigger superstructure so more pens from BB AP and cruiser HE. If youre going into HP then in terms of size-health ratio Stalingrad is worse of. With the same HP calculation that Moskva has Stalingrad would have ~83k HP, but WG gave these ships their own HP calculation. 25mm of belt armor is pretty insignificant against anything but cruiser AP at the longest ranges.

 

80m turning circle and a couple seconds more rudder, sure not much, but still something of note. Actually Stalingrad is .5 knots faster than Moskva.

its like 0.2km, but more importantly Air detection is 1.6km worse on Stalingrad, and that is quite significant with all the spotter planes around. Much higher chance people can spot you behind cover outside your radar range.

 

Moskva def AA is much better than Stalingrads, thanks for reminding me.

 

The (marginal) incosistency and more combersome ammunition switching makes it much worse than the raw numbers would indicate

Good points, especially 1). Havent thought about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JUNK]
[JUNK]
Beta Tester
1,932 posts
8,396 battles
1 minute ago, MrAnarchy said:

Good points, especially 1). Havent thought about that.

I did overemphasize with the "way more tanky" thing, but my main concern with Stalingrad was that it would tank better than even some BBs and completely remove the "second BB" role Moskva had in competitive. Luckily that wasnt the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
36 posts
8,215 battles
Just now, Affeks said:

I did overemphasize with the "way more tanky" thing, but my main concern with Stalingrad was that it would tank better than even some BBs and completely remove the "second BB" role Moskva had in competitive. Luckily that wasnt the case.

Would you say they do the tanking role equally well, or Moskva does it better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JUNK]
[JUNK]
Beta Tester
1,932 posts
8,396 battles
Just now, MrAnarchy said:

Would you say they do the tanking role equally well, or Moskva does it better?

I would say Moskva does it significantly better. Stalingrad is tanky dont get me wrong, but the superstructure is a weakness Moskva suffers just that much less from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
3,268 posts
14,049 battles
1 hour ago, MrAnarchy said:

Played a couple games in Stalingrad and it feels as an upgrade over Moskva. Any reason left to play Moskva? Id like to hear some arguments.

 

WorldOfWarships 2018-08-23 14-35-50-79.jpg

 

 

Stalingrad is A LOT fatter than Moskva, making it way easier to hit.

 

Especially that 25mm upper part of the nose is way bigger, and an easy target for BBs who know what they are doing.

 

 

WorldOfWarships 2018-08-23 14-34-50-55.jpg

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Quality Poster
5,060 posts
19,507 battles
31 minutes ago, MrAnarchy said:

Good points, especially 1). Havent thought about that.

Also you opening statement is like saying why play the Moskva when you have the Minator or the Hindenburg.. Stalingrad and Moskva are very different ships.. 

Look no further than the gun calibre or ROF There very different ships.. about the only thing the same is they are both tier X Russian Cruisers.. and even that is arguable ( I have not played her but will get her tonight when home) many people are saying she plays like a BB. This is one concern for the next round of ranked. Clans that made it (3 of our clan completed the flag mission and can get the Stalingrad) will have an advantage as they can effectively bring more than 1 BB. (personally I hope Stalingrad is barred from Clan battles)

 

Now if you were talking about salem and DE Moins they are very similar but at the same time not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×