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

The Azuma (The Poor Man's Stalingrad)

121 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,056 posts
13,767 battles

azuma.jpg

Azuma Tier X Japanese Heavy Cruiser

This doesn't appear to have reached the EU just yet, so I thought I should bring it over.

ST, Japanese cruiser Azuma, tier X

Hit points – 71800. Plating - 25 mm.
Main battery - 3x3 310 mm. Firing range - 19.1 km.
Maximum HE shell damage – 5100. Chance to cause fire – 27%. Maximum AP shell damage - 8650....
Reload time - 18.0 s. 180 degree turn time - 36.0 s. Maximum dispersion - 196 м.
HE initial velocity - 836 m/s. AP initial velocity - 836 m/s. Sigma – 2.0.
Maximum speed - 34 kt. Turning circle radius - 920 m. Rudder shift time – 13.9 s. Surface detectability – 15.1 km. Air detectability – 13.4 km. Detectability after firing main guns in smoke – 11.7 km.

AA defense:
- 12x2 40.0 mm, range - 3.5 km, damage per second - 132.
- 18x3 25.0 mm, range - 3.1 km, damage per second - 110.
- 8x2 100.0 mm, range - 5.0 km, damage per second - 166.

Available consumables:
- 1 slot - Damage Control Party
- 2 slot - Hydroacoustic Search / Defensive AA fire
- 3 slot - Spotting Aircraft
- 4 slot - Repair Party

All stats are listed without crew and upgrade modifiers but with best available modules. The stats are subject to change during the testing.

 

Quite honestly it just looks like a significantly inferior Stalingrad, especially as she apparently has no special rules for her AP.

So compared to the Stalingrad, the Azumaya has:

  • Poorer armor
  • Poorer shell AP krupp
  • Poorer shell AP bounce angles
  • Poorer shell AP fuse time
  • Worse shell velocity, and consequently a longer shell flight time
  • Worse AP shell weight
  • Worse accuracy
  • Worse cruise speed
  • Worse AA
  • No radar suite at all
  • A garbage armor scheme for a ship her size
  • A worse rudder shift period

Whilst both being:

  • Large gun, large shell cruisers
  • With the same overmatch threshold
  • The same HE penetration threshold
  • Occupying the same Tier X cruiser slot

And in return she gets:

  • A marginally better turning radius
  • Better surface concealment
  • A 4.5% better AP DPM and a 26% better HE DPM
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
1,129 posts
14,483 battles
2 minutes ago, dasCKD said:

Maximum dispersion - 196 м.

Great dispersion , wish they could give kronsthat this .

2 minutes ago, dasCKD said:

Chance to cause fire – 27%.

Bad fire chance for IJN Shell, so will be AP slinger i guess

 

3 minutes ago, dasCKD said:

 

Quite honestly it just looks like a significantly inferior Stalingrad, especially as she apparently has no special rules for her AP.

If they give this to this cruiser i want it Kronshtadt aswell , honestly stalingrad should not have gotten the AP angle buff and not the kronshtat .. oh well , my coal / steel  is safe for now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Quality Poster
2,921 posts
8,281 battles

Hi all,

 

From past experience "Tier X" would be Steel only and "Tier IX" would be FreeXP/Coal/Money ...

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HMSR]
Beta Tester
1,722 posts
5,871 battles

I like that B-65 is finnaly comming. 

What i dont like is, steel price and it's missing it planned torps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GD]
Beta Tester
62 posts
5,800 battles

I was hoping for the B-65 cruiser design to come to life. I love its similarity to the Yamato.
I hope it will be a free XP or coal ship. Clan and steel ships are not the best solution for the game.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HMSR]
Beta Tester
1,722 posts
5,871 battles
Just now, DanRO said:

I hope it will be a free XP or coal ship

TX, guarenteed steel ship. 

Looking by past ships. 

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,056 posts
13,767 battles

What concerns me is the terrible plating at 25 mm and the lack of special AP and dispersion rules that the Stalingrad benefits from which makes the Azuma a pale shadow of the Stalingrad. Unless of course WG wanted to give her something stupid like the Conqueror heal. The Stalingrad set a very high bar with her excellent shell velocity and stupid bounce angles and fuse time which would make the Azuma inferior even without the Stalingrad's radar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KG_CZ]
[KG_CZ]
Beta Tester
90 posts
7,409 battles
6 minutes ago, Major_Damage225 said:

TX, guarenteed steel ship. 

Looking by past ships. 

Salem?

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HMSR]
Beta Tester
1,722 posts
5,871 battles
3 minutes ago, Kpt_Silas said:

Salem?

I hope its coal, but till wg announces the price i'll be a bit sceptical. :Smile_Default:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
1,089 posts
15,737 battles
17 minutes ago, dasCKD said:

Quite honestly it just looks like a significantly inferior Stalingrad, especially as she apparently has no special rules for her AP.

 

On the other hand it is interesting how Stalingrad now become new standard to determine is the new ship good or bad. And I thought that Stalingrad should be a worthy prize for those who suffered in CW but now seems that every new ship needs to be at least equally good. Also improved AP angles are now must have thing on everything.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KG_CZ]
[KG_CZ]
Beta Tester
90 posts
7,409 battles
1 minute ago, Major_Damage225 said:

I hope its coal, but till wg announces the price i'll be a bit sceptical. :Smile_Default:

That's true tho. I hope for coal as well, JB does not appeal to me so I am getting nice stack of it. If this Azuma would end up on par with Stalin, then I would definitely go after her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UTW]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
7,933 posts
6,611 battles
3 minutes ago, fumtu said:

 

On the other hand it is interesting how Stalingrad now become new standard to determine is the new ship good or bad. And I thought that Stalingrad should be a worthy prize for those who suffered in CW but now seems that every new ship needs to be at least equally good. Also improved AP angles are now must have thing on everything.

Yes and no. If the Azuma is added as it is, and especially in steel, there's just no reason to buy it. Especially if you take into account the fact that Bourgogne will ALSO cost steel and is quite a strong contender as well.

Let's say I have enough steel for either Bourgogne or Stalingrad, and there's Azuma that appears in the shop with the same cost. I clearly would go for either Stalinblyat or the Bourgogne wine. Azuma wouldn't be interesting enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HMSR]
Beta Tester
1,722 posts
5,871 battles
3 minutes ago, Kpt_Silas said:

That's true tho. I hope for coal as well, JB does not appeal to me so I am getting nice stack of it. If this Azuma would end up on par with Stalin, then I would definitely go after her. 

If it ends up coal, im screwed anyway, bought JB with it, but i like that ship so its a wating game for me then :Smile_smile:

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NKK2]
Players
1,020 posts
3,302 battles

Then we should behave badly for having coal this Christmas? Or is just here in Spain that when you are a bad kid, Santa gives you coal :fish_haloween::Smile_child:

  • Funny 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
1,129 posts
14,483 battles
1 hour ago, Leo_Apollo11 said:

Hi all,

 

From past experience "Tier X" would be Steel only and "Tier IX" would be FreeXP/Coal/Money ...

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

What about salem? 

 

NVM , see others replied same

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
421 posts
4,209 battles

I'm thinking campaign reward ship.

 

With them just having announced Bourgogne for steel and Stalingrad not having been out for too long either, another steel ship would not make much sense.

Could also be Coal, but I'm a bit sceptical. Considering also that there are a few of those available in the T9-T10 bracket already and that it's a relatively new resource.

I also don't see it as a T10 FreeXP ship. Doesn't look like something WG would do, though I wouldn't mind I guess.

That's all assuming, it's coming in the relatively near future, like within the next 6 months. If it's released much later than that, all bets are off..

So for me, a campaign reward seems to make the most sense.

 

Edit: Actually. After reading about the plans to devalue/inflate steel (plans for New Years events where you can buy steel for real money), perhaps it will instead be the first copper/molybdenium ship!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,056 posts
13,767 battles
1 hour ago, fumtu said:

 

On the other hand it is interesting how Stalingrad now become new standard to determine is the new ship good or bad. And I thought that Stalingrad should be a worthy prize for those who suffered in CW but now seems that every new ship needs to be at least equally good. Also improved AP angles are now must have thing on everything.

First of all, you will find countless Stalingrad owner who would be more than happy to regale you on why the Stalingrad isn't overpowered, so there is no reason why the Azuma should not be at least as good or have an advantage elsewhere. Secondly, 'it took a long time' is not a valid reason to hold a ship that is superior to all its competition from the playerbase at large. If a ship can only be balanced by its exclusivity, (looking at you, USN Black) then it should not exist.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
1,089 posts
15,737 battles
1 hour ago, ShinGetsu said:

Yes and no. If the Azuma is added as it is, and especially in steel, there's just no reason to buy it. Especially if you take into account the fact that Bourgogne will ALSO cost steel and is quite a strong contender as well.

Let's say I have enough steel for either Bourgogne or Stalingrad, and there's Azuma that appears in the shop with the same cost. I clearly would go for either Stalinblyat or the Bourgogne wine. Azuma wouldn't be interesting enough.

 

So do you think that premium  ships should also be balanced taking into consideration also a resource you should use to obtain it? Does steel ship has to be better then coal ship? I mean if Azuma ends to be coal of FXP ship would you still consider that is should be equally strong to Stalingrad?

 

IMO Azuma should be alternative to Zao in IJN tree. I don't say that currently is a good ship. But I don't think that this ship, or any other should be balanced on the premise, "Why would I buy this over that".

 

28 minutes ago, dasCKD said:

First of all, you will find countless Stalingrad owner who would be more than happy to regale you on why the Stalingrad isn't overpowered, so there is no reason why the Azuma should not be at least as good or have an advantage elsewhere. Secondly, 'it took a long time' is not a valid reason to hold a ship that is superior to all its competition from the playerbase at large. If a ship can only be balanced by its exclusivity, (looking at you, USN Black) then it should not exist.

 

What I want to say is that people have quite common practice to choose a really strong if not OP ship at some tier and try to compare a new ship to it. Why would I play this or that ship over GM, Kami, GC, Belfast ... On the same way now seems that Stalingrad is a new measure what T10 premium cruiser should be. Is Stalingrad OP or not? It is certainly a strong ship and I personally don't think that it should be used as measure of what Azuma should be. I'm already seeing a request to give it a radar or AP angles because Stalingrad has it.

 

Make Azuma a strong ship, give her torps or whatever, make her uniq in some way, sure but please don't make it an IJN copy of Stalingrad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SOCKS]
Players
771 posts
5,479 battles
2 hours ago, dasCKD said:

What concerns me is the terrible plating at 25 mm....

1

 

We need a proper look to the armor schematics of the ship to reach that conclussion. Theoretically the Moskva, Kronshtadt and Stalingrad also have 25mm plating in the bows and stern, but we all know it's covering only the upper side of the bow and those ships are monsters bow on tanking as a result.

Zao also has (on paper) 25mm plating and I think we can all vouch for it not being terribly flimsy.

Ship as a whole indeed looks like a VERY poor's man Stalingrad. It's not only the standard AP angles and stuff, is that it lacks the laser shell speed, and more importantly, the outrageous 2.65 sigma. And that's good. We don't need more OP monsters in the game, and for all intents and purposes, Stalingrad is just that so any properly balanced ship will compare badly with it.

 

that said, I'd play it. but that'll depend on what currency is used to purchase it. Money or Steel are out of the question. Coal or freeXp...would be an interesting proposition.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,056 posts
13,767 battles
7 minutes ago, fumtu said:

So do you think that premium  ships should also be balanced taking into consideration also a resource you should use to obtain it? Does steel ship has to be better then coal ship? I mean if Azuma ends to be coal of FXP ship would you still consider that is should be equally strong to Stalingrad?

Yes I do. That is all there is to it. If a ship has to face another in battle, I expect them to be balanced against each other. There is nothing to argue about here from a perspective of game balance. More experienced players getting better items than less experienced ones is a way to choke off the game and to commit it to a slow death. The way a ship is obtained should NEVER EVER come into play when deciding the relative strength of the ship.

10 minutes ago, fumtu said:

What I want to say is that people have quite common practice to choose a really strong if not OP ship at some tier and try to compare a new ship to it. Why would I play this or that ship over GM, Kami, GC, Belfast ... On the same way now seems that Stalingrad is a new measure what T10 premium cruiser should be. Is Stalingrad OP or not? It is certainly a strong ship and I personally don't think that it should be used as measure of what Azuma should be. I'm already seeing a request to give it a radar or AP angles because Stalingrad has it.

A new ship is expected to have to compete with the old ship lines. As WG has a policy to not nerf premium ships (a policy I find moronic and I am saying this as someone who has just about every premium ship in my port) and therefore I expect every new ship that comes out to be released under the consideration of how they would perform against those overpowered ships. What we do NOT need is for WG to start plugging their ears and pretending that overpowered premiums do not exist when releasing a new ship line. If the Stalingrad's traits are too strong and no other ship should be allowed to have those traits, then I would first demand for the Stalingrad to be nerfed. As that is unlikely to ever happen, I instead say that all the ships that will face her should be balanced under the assumption that they could be facing a Stalingrad in battle and are expected to act as her equal at least some respect to the opposite team. To do otherwise is moronic.

14 minutes ago, fumtu said:

Make Azuma a strong ship, give her torps or whatever, make her uniq in some way, sure but please don't make it an IJN copy of Stalingrad.

I am not asking for the Azuma to be made into another Stalingrad. Instead, I am seeing the Azuma as an admission that putting so much power into the Stalingrad was a mistake if they released a ship so markedly inferior to her in just about every respect and still considered her an acceptable tier X ship.

17 minutes ago, RAMJB said:

We don't need more OP monsters in the game, and for all intents and purposes, Stalingrad is just that so any properly balanced ship will compare badly with it.

In that case, the Stalingrad should be bought in line with the other tier X cruisers. If that is unacceptable for WG seeing as how she's a premium ship and all, then the other tier X cruisers need to be brought in line with her. We can't just continue the game and just act like the Stalingrad doesn't exist.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
781 posts
4,327 battles

High tier games are all about the AP. Stalingrad could have 25mm plate and non-triple protected citadel but still be op solely due to the fact that it has overmatching AP, and BB level health pools. And how it is categorized as a cruiser for MM, but can win against any other "lesser" cruiser 1-1 on its tier. (HE can be strong but is less game-changing than AP.)

 

Also 836 shell velocity? You serious? You ever heard of a Kutuzov? It's T8 btw. And it will dodge every single one of your 836 T10 shells while hitting you with every single one of its T8 shells for the same camp range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POMF]
Beta Tester
1,860 posts
3,718 battles

Honestly looking at Azuma stats she seems to be more in line with Alaska and Kronh in most respects. I don't see why she is tier 10 currently instead of tier 9

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[W-C]
Beta Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
2,244 posts
5,950 battles
3 hours ago, Leo_Apollo11 said:

Hi all,

 

From past experience "Tier X" would be Steel only and "Tier IX" would be FreeXP/Coal/Money ...

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

Yup...leave it to WG to ruin our joy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SOCKS]
Players
771 posts
5,479 battles
19 minutes ago, Verdius said:

Honestly looking at Azuma stats she seems to be more in line with Alaska and Kronh in most respects. I don't see why she is tier 10 currently instead of tier 9

 

Probably because neither has any business being a Tier 9 ship to begin with. To think that an Alaska or a Kronshtadt is judged by the MM to be the equal of an Ibuki or a Buffalo is just mindbogging. And the fact that they are/will, is as stupid as trying to pass Yamato Mk.2 (AKA Musashi) as a "fair and balanced" T9 battleship.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×