An idea for balancing the new Soviet Heavy cruisers.

[Miscommunication_dept]

Heavy cruisers are looking very strong at the moment, this is likely to change as they are still in testing.

 

I would just like to float an idea that Wargaming once tried with the Stalingrad before it's release.

 

Could we make them AP only?

 

It might a way to let them keep their powerful AP while limiting the effectiveness of the ships.

 

Good idea? Bad idea?

 

Discuss...

[Azalgor]

6 minutes ago, gopher31 said:

this is likely to change as they are still in testing

Da comrade, we will make them more strong, like adding smoke.

 

[Fat_Maniac]

I'd say no. CA HE is not an issue, HE is only a problem on certain CL's and daka daka boats.

[Redfoxrommy]

As a player i dont interest any new russian paper ships. İ dont even know  their names. For me they will op and nerf 1 year later or move from sale or from tree .

Wg did alot of mistakes past 1 year and they are still doing.

 

not: This op  paper ships just damage russian heratige and make it joke for everybody . sorry wg .

 

 

[Animalul2012]

So you want them to become even more worthless than they are? How about you use your mind and start thinking out of the bubble? Let me guess you saw some videos from youtube from some guys who where punishing below average players that showed broadside and they got above 2 citadels on them, and you and they were like,, OMG WHAT IS THIS NOT EVEN A BB CAN DO THIS WOW''(Meanwhile bourgogne is the best ship in the game that punishes broadsides and is a BB)

Do you own moskva with legendary, stalingrad? Have you played them? Well if you did then you would not consider this ship above them more like a abomination between them, except that moskva is an attrition ship:sit at long range, burn the enemy,punish broadsides with AP thanks to your great dispersion with legendary module, same goes for stalingrad but is more AP oriented. 

Petro? Petro can not do this thanks to worse range than both,and way worse dispersion and worse dpm. BUT THOSE AP ANGLES? 50 degrees while everyone else gets 45 such an big improvement(meanwhile US heavy cruisers get 67,5 and stalin 55.) But it has great pen for a 220mm armed cruiser, stalin has better, and that penetration power will not matter when the targets start speaking angle and bow in. And the HE is meh at best. How is this ship OP and better compared to stalingrad and moskva? Because it has 360 turrets? Better concealment that allows it to stealth radar.(while the radar last 2 times less than the one found on stalingrad and moskva) And is not a brawling cruiser thanks to no torpedoes, no dpm,no good HE and huge citadel. Also do you wonder why these new cruisers get around 150-250 mm of citadel protection? Is it because of bias? NO! it is made it that way that any shell(especially from BBs) that manages to penetrate it will score a citadel no matter the range, unlike the smolenks whose citadel is thin and most BBs overpen it. 

Again think out of the bubble, this ship is no where near the performance of moskva and stalingrad unless....they pull a grozovoi.

[ColonelPete]

1 hour ago, gopher31 said:

Heavy cruisers are looking very strong at the moment, this is likely to change as they are still in testing.

 

I would just like to float an idea that Wargaming once tried with the Stalingrad before it's release.

 

Could we make them AP only?

Nope.

Then the AP would even made stronger.

 

Easy solution: Just look at the guns of Donskoi and Moskwa and make the new ships guns perform similar, if not identical.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

1 hour ago, Redfoxrommy said:

As a player i dont interest any new russian paper ships. İ dont even know  their names. For me they will op and nerf 1 year later or move from sale or from tree .

Wg did alot of mistakes past 1 year and they are still doing.

 

not: This op  paper ships just damage russian heratige and make it joke for everybody . sorry wg .

 

 

 

The difference between the Russians and the later Soviets is that the Russians could actually build their ships (or have them built overseas), whereas the Soviets were mostly able to draw up failed designs... and they probably wouldn't have even been able to build them even in the unlikely event had they managed to come up with something worth building.

 

More vodka, anyone?

[Fatal_Ramses]

How about not releasing them? As with the RU BBs they bring nothing good to the game.

[ColonelPete]

3 minutes ago, Fatal_Ramses said:

How about not releasing them? As with the RU BBs they bring nothing good to the game.

You still believe in the Easter Bunny, right?

[Fatal_Ramses]

2 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

You still believe in the Easter Bunny, right?

No, but what does that have to do with these imaginary and unnecessary OP ships?

[Hawker_gb]

3 minutes ago, Fatal_Ramses said:

No, but what does that have to do with these imaginary and unnecessary OP ships?

Luckily,we have alot of real ships like Montana,GK,FdG,Hindenburg,Zao,Conqueror etc... so we dont need imaginary ones.

Even so, Thunderer is totally worthless and cannot start fire like Smolensk can.

[Fatal_Ramses]

1 minute ago, Hawker_gb said:

Luckily,we have alot of real ships like Montana,GK,FdG,Hindenburg,Zao,Conqueror etc... so we dont need imaginary ones.

Even so, Thunderer is totally worthless and cannot start fire like Smolensk can.

So fighting fire with more fire will most certainly improve the game and high tier game play?

Atleast the ships you mention are not so overly overpower than these new ones they plan to release.

I only hope that they wont release them in the state they are now.

 

I know the "Rubicon has been crossed" and these ships are coming but I hope they tweak them to right way.

[ColonelPete]

9 minutes ago, Fatal_Ramses said:

No, but what does that have to do with these imaginary and unnecessary OP ships?

It has to do with you considering that WG would not release the ships...

[Fatal_Ramses]

14 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

It has to do with you considering that WG would not release the ships...

Why thank you for clearing it up to a simpleton like me.

[ColonelPete]

4 minutes ago, Fatal_Ramses said:

Why thank you for clearing it up to a simpleton like me.

You dared to ask...

[Lebedjev]

1 hour ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

The difference between the Russians and the later Soviets is that the Russians could actually build their ships (or have them built overseas), whereas the Soviets were mostly able to draw up failed designs.

Because navy was not the top priority and they have much more important thing to deal with it during this time ?

 

1 hour ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

...and they probably wouldn't have even been able to build them even in the unlikely event had they managed to come up with something worth building.

They build a navy during the cold war and yes, they sell a few of them to pepsi.

So Soviet were really a brainless monkey compare to the imperial navy ? Whose also have is up and down ?

 

3 hours ago, Redfoxrommy said:

not: This op  paper ships just damage russian heratige and make it joke for everybody . sorry wg .

Is that a serious statement ? Because it's like to said Stalin is only know as a dancer, since this game was realase. :/

 

[Andrewbassg]

2 hours ago, Animalul2012 said:

So you want them to become even more worthless than they are? How about you use your mind and start thinking out of the bubble? Let me guess you saw some videos from youtube from some guys who where punishing below average players that showed broadside and they got above 2 citadels on them, and you and they were like,, OMG WHAT IS THIS NOT EVEN A BB CAN DO THIS WOW''(Meanwhile bourgogne is the best ship in the game that punishes broadsides and is a BB)

Do you own moskva with legendary, stalingrad? Have you played them? Well if you did then you would not consider this ship above them more like a abomination between them, except that moskva is an attrition ship:sit at long range, burn the enemy,punish broadsides with AP thanks to your great dispersion with legendary module, same goes for stalingrad but is more AP oriented. 

Petro? Petro can not do this thanks to worse range than both,and way worse dispersion and worse dpm. BUT THOSE AP ANGLES? 50 degrees while everyone else gets 45 such an big improvement(meanwhile US heavy cruisers get 67,5 and stalin 55.) But it has great pen for a 220mm armed cruiser, stalin has better, and that penetration power will not matter when the targets start speaking angle and bow in. And the HE is meh at best. How is this ship OP and better compared to stalingrad and moskva? Because it has 360 turrets? Better concealment that allows it to stealth radar.(while the radar last 2 times less than the one found on stalingrad and moskva) And is not a brawling cruiser thanks to no torpedoes, no dpm,no good HE and huge citadel. Also do you wonder why these new cruisers get around 150-250 mm of citadel protection? Is it because of bias? NO! it is made it that way that any shell(especially from BBs) that manages to penetrate it will score a citadel no matter the range, unlike the smolenks whose citadel is thin and most BBs overpen it. 

Again think out of the bubble, this ship is no where near the performance of moskva and stalingrad unless....they pull a grozovoi.

 

Well, Animalu' din 2012 you got it all  wrong.It doesn't matter what the spreadsh*t is telling you, it matters what the ingame experience is all about. And how WG consistently and constantly create OP russian shi(*)ps, filling entire lines with, them while they release total BS lines filled literally with mehbotes ( RN CA's, RM Ca's, etc)

  Did you have a look at Lenin? Just wtf is that abomination? Because ship it ain't. It is some animeish, cartoonish, spaceish, fortressish thing. Clearly it wasn't meant to float( edit: I meant sail...) .

    To be honest, me really like thing's russian and soviet, buuut...... bs not so much.

[Andrewbassg]

6 minutes ago, Lebedjev said:

Because navy was not the top priority and they have much more important thing to deal with it during this time ?

 

They build a navy during the cold war and yes, they sell a few of them to pepsi.

So Soviet were really a brainless monkey compare to the imperial navy ? Whose also have is up and down ?

Easy. He meant the in game portrayal of them. Which we all due respect is NOT what "reality" was

[Lebedjev]

1 minute ago, Andrewbassg said:

Easy. He meant the in game portrayal of them. Which we all due respect is NOT what "reality" was

It's a game, why people care so much about reality ?

Should we wait 15mn + in order to start the engine because reality, should we remove HP because reality etc...

 

If yes we should do that, in that case you should simply play another game. Wows is not a simulation and don't try to be one.

[Andrewbassg]

4 minutes ago, Lebedjev said:

It's a game, why people care so much about reality ?

Should we wait 15mn + in order to start the engine because reality, should we remove HP because reality etc...

 

If yes we should do that, in that case you should simply play another game. Wows is not a simulation and don't try to be one.

Well, no offense, but rather I would play ships in  a ship game then "flying pigs or monkeys".....and you should read what Sub_0 comments were on gamasutra.Taking pride in the "realness" of the game.and alike.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

11 minutes ago, Lebedjev said:

Because navy was not the top priority and they have much more important thing to deal with it during this time ?

 

They build a navy during the cold war and yes, they sell a few of them to pepsi.

So Soviet were really a brainless monkey compare to the imperial navy ? Whose also have is up and down ?

 

 

Everyone is aware of the many shortcomings of the Imperial Navy, it is easy to see that despite having excellent naval engineers and the necessary installations to build those ships (I grant you the Soviets lost most of that following 1918), they somehow managed to botch up so many things. The Soviets were just so much worse in every possible respect. The Soviets also 'lost' many talented engineers and inventors for 'various reasons', but they managed to retain some good ones too, like Admiral Kitkin and Admiral Berg. In my opinion, there was a huge difference between Russian trained and Soviet trained professionals though...

 

3 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Easy. He meant the in game portrayal of them. Which we all due respect is NOT what "reality" was

 

By way of slight exaggerating, most of the Russian ships in the game were real ships. Real in the sense of having been designed and built, seeing service, or at least were laid down. Most of the Soviet ships seem to be more or less questionable paper designs. The worst aspect of this is as they were never really built, we have nothing against which to measure if they are balanced designs or hyped up in comparison to the real ships that other nations managed to get built.

[Redfoxrommy]

19 hours ago, Lebedjev said:

 

Is that a serious statement ? Because it's like to said Stalin is only know as a dancer, since this game was realase. :/

 

i am talking about for all russian ships . so pls stop nonsence examples.

[Exocet6951]

Wish granted.
Soviet AP now has RN CL ricochet angles, and become the first AP shell in the game to model the bursting charge in AP shells, leading to both AOE damage and fire chance.

 

 

[Humorpalanta]

20 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

Wish granted.
Soviet AP now has RN CL ricochet angles, and become the first AP shell in the game to model the bursting charge in AP shells, leading to both AOE damage and fire chance.

 

 

When you cannot tell if it is a joke or actually happened...

 

[Exocet6951]

5 minutes ago, Humorpalanta said:

When you cannot tell if it is a joke or actually happened...

 

 

Not to my knowledge, but by my estimate, I'd give it 2 years.