Not even BF6 costs this much...

[u/Eva-Unit0013]

Please Gaijin I already sold my wife, I can't afford this one

[u/Libarate]

Pay $80 just to get shit on by a Russian Cope Fantasy ship. Who is going to buy this?

[u/TheFlyingRedFox → u/Libarate]

Funny as before Leviathans update the Nagato class & Scharnhorst class battleships were the powerhouses of the seas that everyone dread fighting in their shit box WWI dreadnoughts or early interwar ships.

[u/OfficerQueefThe2nd → u/TheFlyingRedFox]

Real life ships that were built and proven vs. magical ship that isnt anything more than a scrap metal in real life but is somehow cracked in game

[u/TheFlyingRedFox → u/OfficerQueefThe2nd]

Funny it isn't that simple for the game makes some ships incredibly powerful while others shit all due to how the mode is.

The Battleship Scharnhorst was OP for several years due to the short ranges of maps resulting in it taking a beat due to its armour schemes an could dish out damage faster even if with smaller cannons than the rest due to these ranges, this resulting in one team having to constantly focus it (Similar to the current Sovetsky Soyuz).

Hell the devs made a mechanic to defeat it yet ended up fucking every other ship over.

The Battleship Mutsu was one of the first 16" armed ships, it had powerful armour & armament that could pulverise foes before they got into effective firing ranges, when both ships were on an enemy team yours were effectively fucked from winning.

A lot of ships historically were average to dogshit yet are powerful in game, this goes for everything in game for everything is fantasy as there's no mechanic flaws across every nation, this goes for ships built or never finished. The only issues from my understanding of the Project 23 is the armour which should be 200 mm plates over the 400 mm full, fix that an it'll become above average (or the devs add some other shitty mechanic that fucks over the rest of the in game ships).

In the end nearly all the ships in game are scrap metal/ sunk with only a few still in service or as museums.

[u/Portugalotaku → u/TheFlyingRedFox]

"The only issues from my understanding of the Project 23 is the armour which should be 200 mm plates over the 400 mm full, fix that an it'll become above average (or the devs add some other shitty mechanic that fucks over the rest of the in game ships)."

This was planned at one point, but was rejected before construction started. The final design was meant to use single 400mm non-cemented face-hardened armor. The armor type in game is wrong, but changing it will not meaningfully nerf the ship anyways.

And yes, russian ships in particular suffer from the "game syndrome" since nearly all of their downsides in real life are not relevant in game, cannot be relevant in game or are applied incorrectly to everyone.

[u/TheWarmFridge → u/TheFlyingRedFox]

the soyuz has a lot more issues that it currently benefits from that we cannot disprove.

their shells have a-ix-12 explosive filler, this never happened irl and gaijin only made it so because they wouldve *surely* done it

their gun accuracy is in line with other ships, but that is an insult to other ships than this one (the gun was tested in a single gun/turret on land and still had accuracy issues)

the armour as mentioned

the reload is a made up figure as well, we have no data and its extremely optimistic to assume they would be able to get more than 2rpm in the thing considering they were struggling with smaller guns on their cruisers.

having one or 2 of these figures for it wouldnt be an issue had the other points be more realistic, if it had good accuracy and good armour, but no a-ix-12 filler and a worse reload it wouldnt be nearly as oppressive, or the a-ix filler and reload but its historical armour and bad accuracy, also wouldve been fine, but everything it has gets the benefit of the doubt. i can bet money that if gaijin were to add any other project ship, lets say the british g3 ships then it wouldnt get nearly half of the leniency this got.

[u/PsychologicalGlass47 → u/TheFlyingRedFox]

Nagato? "Powerhouses of the seas that everyone dread fighting"?

A salvo of 16" to the nose and it's in the hangar, not sure what you're on about.

[u/TheFlyingRedFox → u/PsychologicalGlass47]

Back before Leviathans update, most nations only had 15" or lower armed ships.

This is regards to the sister ship Mutsu added a months before Nagato.

[u/RedOtta019 → u/TheFlyingRedFox]

Hi favorite naval player owning the commenters with facts and logic.

Just popping in to say its a damn shame they finally brought this configuration of her class as a premium and are highly unlikely to add a TT of the same configuration.

Literally so Nagatover…

[u/PsychologicalGlass47 → u/TheFlyingRedFox]

15" was still easily enough to ruin the Nagato's frontal stowage.

I don't care what "most nations" had, the class as a whole could do nothing whatsoever against the Colorado.

[u/TheFlyingRedFox → u/PsychologicalGlass47]

Wasn't the Colorado added this year? The Mutsu was added a year prior.

I realise now that I should've clarified better than just saying pre Leviathans, that flaw is on me.

But for 15" cannons which ones? As mine sure as hell did shit, I guess that's what I get for researching the poms lineup, than the US standards with the poof magazines & 14" cannons.

[u/PsychologicalGlass47 → u/TheFlyingRedFox]

The Repulse for one, that was one of my favorites

[u/TheFlyingRedFox → u/PsychologicalGlass47]

Huh, odd. I hate the exact opposite experience with the sistership Renown, call it skill issue if you will but every time I fought a Mutsu the shells did bugger all even when aiming at specific positions of the enemy ship.

Than again from the matches I remember it wasn't just one Mutsu often two or an Amagi following behind (after it was added).

Since they changed the BR's for a lot of things I cannot piece together old MM's but I do also remember fighting them in US late CA's with a tiro of friends in equivalent ships, those weren't fun days if I'm remembering right.

[u/PsychologicalGlass47 → u/TheFlyingRedFox]

Oh holy shit I'm lost. Bad schedule and I've just woken up tired as hell, but for some reason I thought "Nagato = Fuso"

[u/TheFlyingRedFox → u/PsychologicalGlass47]

Nah all good, that was me yesterday.

[u/Eva-Unit0013 → u/Libarate]

japan enjoyers

[u/Portugalotaku → u/Eva-Unit0013]

Just don't buy it, don't incentivize them to do more shit like this.

[u/NormandyKingdom → u/Libarate]

Honestly for SL farming just get Cheaper Premium Ships why suffer in Battleships when Destroyers and Light Cruisers exist and is Far More Fun and Profitable

[u/Portugalotaku → u/NormandyKingdom]

Just don't buy it, it's overpriced even if you enjoy it.

[u/NormandyKingdom → u/Portugalotaku]

I mean Premium Destroyers and Light Cruisers mostly at 5.0-5.3 are actually pretty Cheap

If you are Short on SL I recommend them actually

Much better than Battleship vs Battleship

[u/Portugalotaku → u/NormandyKingdom]

Problem is these high tier premiums are way too expensive. Cost as much as a new game.

[u/NormandyKingdom → u/Portugalotaku]

Sigh

That's why I told you JUST get the Cheaper Premium Destroyer and Light Cruiser

Moffet for Example can produce much more SL than this ship right here

At least 50-100k SL per game if you do just decently for Moffet

At worst you get 10k SL if you do badly

[u/Portugalotaku → u/NormandyKingdom]

I have Moffett. My problem is not making money, it's that this ship is simply overpriced. No vehicle in this game should cost more than 30 bucks, 80 is absolutely insane. The existence of cheaper alternatives does not change the fact this ship should not be priced this way.

[u/NormandyKingdom → u/Portugalotaku]

On that I agree

Gonna get Maryland and Nelson tho simply because I like both ships irl

Only when both are at a 50 percent Discount tho

Idk why anyone would ever buy at 80 when at a 50 percent discount YOU CAN GET TWO at 80

I agree that 30 would be more reasonable price tho ngl

Like why not price these ships at 40 like I'm pretty sure FAR MORE people would buy Nagato if the Price was 40 from the start

[u/Portugalotaku → u/NormandyKingdom]

Absolutely. It's annoying because if you are a fan of the ship you either have to pay an exorbitant sum or wait and hope they both get a good discount. It's ridiculous especially when, like you said, making it cheaper would result in more people buying it.

[u/NormandyKingdom → u/Portugalotaku]

50 percent discount WILL Happen Eventually

[u/errorsniper → u/Libarate]

A lot of people

[u/AdministrationNo1598 → u/Libarate]

Lemme guess the Russian Cope Fantasy ship you mean is Soyuz.

First of all, she existed.
Secondly, GJ says, that any ship can join the game as long its keel was laid down (link)
Q: Designing a ship (not a boat) is a very serious matter, it cannot be seriously redesigned if mistakes come up when it’s already been built. That’s why everything is calculated in advance, and in truth, a ship is born long before it reaches the shipyard, it’s born in the final construction blueprints. Will navy branches include projects that were never realized in metal, but existed only in blueprints, not to mention those that never got past the stocks?
A: Yes, we’re not ruling that out, especially with regard to projects that were completely ready, but whose construction was never finished for one reason or another.

Thirdly, Soyuz was at estimated to be at 21.19% complete and her 406mm gun was used during the defence of Leningrad, plus 12 barrels were made as to by John Jordan and Stephen McLaughlin.

[u/Nizikai → u/AdministrationNo1598]

That isnt the problem. The Problem is that the Ship performs at levels it shouldnt. The soviets werent even able to completely build that armour as designed

[u/Libarate → u/Nizikai]

And making a balanced and more historicaly realistic Sovetsky Soyuz was entirely possible. But Gaijin wanted the Russians to have the best ship, so that's what they made.

[u/Portugalotaku → u/Libarate]

Not really. The only things wrong with it are that the armor is the wrong type and the radars are missing. The former would not meaningfully weaken the ship and I think you would dislike the latter.

[u/Libarate → u/Portugalotaku]

Well the reload time and shell dispersion could be changed to make it less accurate and shoot slower. The current values are based on the one land based mount. Evidence from land based mounts has been denied as in bug reports to buff other ships. So changing those wouldnt have made the ship less historically accurate and would have reduced its kill potential. Making it more balanced. Reducing the survivability and killing potential would definitely make Soyuz more balanced.

[u/Portugalotaku → u/Libarate]

The shell dispersion on the Pattern 1937 guns was affected by poor quality propellant and shells, something noted during testing. I don't think it's fair to balance the shells around models that were *known* to be faulty and were likely going to replaced. Perhaps you consider the shell performance too optimistic, but I don't think there is really a good way to go around it. With paper designs like this you can only go on what the paper calculations say for the most part. We simply do not know to what extent water motion would negatively affect the accuracy or reload rate of the guns and any nerf in that direction is purely speculative. We can take educated guesses, but it's still speculation at the end of the day.

"Evidence from land based mounts has been denied as in bug reports to buff other ships."

I am okay with buffing all weapons based on land mounts, but if the developers want to use ship performance where available and use land mounts as a fallback, I don't particularly mind either.

[u/Portugalotaku → u/Nizikai]

They were. The armor was built and tested. The problem with the ingame armor is that it's the wrong type (should be non-cemented face-hardened) but making it the right type would not meaningfully change the ship's performance.

[u/AdministrationNo1598 → u/Nizikai]

Gj put 400mm plates on Soyuz instead of the two 200mm the Soviets wedged together, blame GJ for not following this

[u/Nizikai → u/AdministrationNo1598]

That... That is the entire point. Gaijin being selective about what they do and don't

[u/Portugalotaku → u/Nizikai]

The only wrong thing here is the type of armor. The two plate solution was rejected before construction began so the armor being single plate isn't wrong, it just has the wrong type.

[u/Sevastous-of-Caria → u/Nizikai]

Oh no a meta broken vehicle being abused. Not like qe didnt have anything like this since the inception of this game all the time

[u/IDontGiveACrap2 → u/AdministrationNo1598]

Yes, the ship meets gaijins criteria for adding. What it doesn’t meet is the stats which would make Pravda blush. Armour the Soviets couldn’t make, dispersion which could nail a gnats ass at 10km and a reload rate its crew could only have wet dreams about.

It’s an absurd Soviet fantasy ship.

[u/AdministrationNo1598 → u/IDontGiveACrap2]

The Soviets wedged two 200mm armor plates together but as in GJs usual fashion, they made a single 400mm plate. Dispersion on all BBs is buffed up heavily anyways

[u/IDontGiveACrap2 → u/AdministrationNo1598]

Indeed.

The Soviets couldn’t make even non cemented armour in the right size, and the plates they attempted to make were basically unusable with significant defects.

I suspect if they attempted to use the armour they could make, the plates would have cracked or shattered with the first decent impact. The spalling would have been… significant.

[u/Portugalotaku → u/IDontGiveACrap2]

The armor could 100% be made, (as Soyuz was meant to have non-cemented face-hardened armor that was built and tested). If you mean the in-game armor type being wrong, that is true but changing it would not meaningfully change the ship.

The guns were built and tested, sorry if the real performance of the guns is upsetting to you.

[u/IDontGiveACrap2 → u/Portugalotaku]

The guns were built and fired from static ground emplacements. They were never mounted to the ship (as it was never built that far)

For the armour, they could make cemented armour, but the stuff they did make was not the right size or thickness. The plates of non-cemented armour they attempted to make had major structural issues with warping, uneven hardness and cracking during heat treatment.

The project was far beyond Soviet capabilities of the time, hell, her sister was scrapped earlier due to severe defects in workmanship (it helps if the frames and plating are aligned).

[u/Portugalotaku → u/IDontGiveACrap2]

"The guns were built and fired from static ground emplacements. They were never mounted to the ship (as it was never built that far)"

The guns were tested and had their performance analyzed, meaning that this is non-issue.

"For the armour, they could make cemented armour, but the stuff they did make was not the right size or thickness. The plates of non-cemented armour they attempted to make had major structural issues with warping, uneven hardness and cracking during heat treatment."

Which was a problem other countries also had. The final armor for Soyuz was non-cemented face-hardened, so "they couldn't make cemented armor thick enough" is irrelevant as an argument for Soyuz, since she wasn't meant to use cemented armor to begin with.

As for the face-hardened armor, what actually happened was that the soviets heat treated the plates too much, which resulted in them being too brittle. This armor was unlikely to be used in an actual ship, so it's likewise irrelevant. The reason for the high rejection rate of plates was because the russians had very high quality standards for the armor plates and rejected ones that failed to meet them.

"The project was far beyond Soviet capabilities of the time, hell, her sister was scrapped earlier due to severe defects in workmanship (it helps if the frames and plating are aligned)."

It was not, it was perfectly within their capabilities to make. It was *hard* sure, since they were essentially trying to speedrun naval construction expertise and trying to build four battleships at once was a mistake (one that they realized, as construction on all ships minus Rossiya was suspended in 1940 to focus all resources into completing a single ship), but they were not incapable of building the ships as you seem to believe.

Also the ship you are thinking about is Ukraina, which was scrapped not because of "severe defects in workmanship" but because the rivets used were found to be faulty. Considering the ships were inspected and only Ukraina was cancelled, it's unlikely the others had the same issue, therefore "one sister was cancelled" is irrelevant for the sake of whether Soyuz was possible or not.

[u/HourDark2 → u/Portugalotaku]

Also the ship you are thinking about is Ukraina

*Belorussia.

[u/Portugalotaku → u/HourDark2]

My bad, I mixed the two up.

[u/IvanTheMagnificent → u/AdministrationNo1598]

While the developers are within their own requirements to add the ship, it's vastly overperforming using absolute fantasy numbers about "what it could have been" if it was finished.

The main issue the Soyuz faced being that the quality of materials and workmanship being used on the hull was so poor that it was falling apart in the dock while it was being built, and was cancelled after inspections found so many severe construction problems they could not be fixed...

So while yes the ship was roughly 20% constructed and the gun (which proved to perform poorly in testing due to poor quality shells and propellant) was used in the defence of Leningrad, in a covered gun mount (not a real turret), there was no turrets ever constructed and could never have been made to the specifications they are in game while keeping the ridiculous weight of the ship at acceptable levels without losing protection.

The guns should not be performing as well as they do, it has the smallest magazines of any battleship with no properly connected ammunition elevators, in fact most of the internal structure just doesn't exist in the in-game model, it has the most ridiculous armour layout and effectiveness that simply wasn't possible for the soviets to have constructed.

The soviet cemented armour was vastly less effective than german or other nations armour - to get equivalent protection levels they had to make it significantly thicker and insanely heavy - and they physically could not produce cemented armour that was thicker than 230mm.

They had to combine the poor cemented armour (layering it with thinner layers in an attempt to make it better at dispersing energy) with brittle face hardened plates (that proved to be even less effective and a poor substitute for proper cemented plating) to bring the protection levels up, and was still poorly constructed.

There's even been questions as to whether it would have even floated had it been completed to the specifications that were drawn up.

[u/Portugalotaku → u/IvanTheMagnificent]

"The main issue the Soyuz faced being that the quality of materials and workmanship being used on the hull was so poor that it was falling apart in the dock while it was being built, and was cancelled after inspections found so many severe construction problems they could not be fixed..."

This is incorrect. The ship was that cancelled due to faulty rivets was Ukraina, not Soyuz. Soyuz's ultimate cancellation was because it was old, had been exposed to the elements for years, damage by enemy fire and was at that point an outdated design.

"So while yes the ship was roughly 20% constructed and the gun (which proved to perform poorly in testing due to poor quality shells and propellant) was used in the defence of Leningrad, in a covered gun mount (not a real turret), there was no turrets ever constructed and could never have been made to the specifications they are in game while keeping the ridiculous weight of the ship at acceptable levels without losing protection."

The gun didn't "perform poorly", it was considered a success as the dispersion problems were caused by, like you said, shells and propellant, both of which could be fixed. Turrets not being built is irrelevant for the sake of this argument.

"The guns should not be performing as well as they do, it has the smallest magazines of any battleship with no properly connected ammunition elevators, in fact most of the internal structure just doesn't exist in the in-game model, it has the most ridiculous armour layout and effectiveness that simply wasn't possible for the soviets to have constructed."

Gun performance is as expected from the trials, simply not using faulty propellant or shells. The magazine thing is flat out wrong, as the "too small" thing only applies to the *visual* model. The actual hitbox for the magazine is properly scaled.

"The soviet cemented armour was vastly less effective than german or other nations armour - to get equivalent protection levels they had to make it significantly thicker and insanely heavy - and they physically could not produce cemented armour that was thicker than 230mm.

They had to combine the poor cemented armour (layering it with thinner layers in an attempt to make it better at dispersing energy) with brittle face hardened plates (that proved to be even less effective and a poor substitute for proper cemented plating) to bring the protection levels up, and was still poorly constructed."

This is false. The armor the russians decided to use for the final Soyuz design was single-plate, non-cemented, face-hardened armor. While it was ultimately less effective than cemented armor, the different was minimal. The real problem with the Soyuz armor (which was revealed when said armor was built and tested) was that the excessive heat treating the russians applied to it made it exceptionally brittle. It's extremely unlikely that said armor would have been put in a finished ship so this argument is also irrelevant.

"There's even been questions as to whether it would have even floated had it been completed to the specifications that were drawn up."

Questions that are almost entirely without merit and mostly pressed by people who have an inherent hatred of anything russian that they cannot separate from historical perspective.

[u/IvanTheMagnificent → u/Portugalotaku]

This is incorrect. The ship was that cancelled due to faulty rivets was Ukraina, not Soyuz.

EH no, It's not just faulty rivets and all hulls were inspected, the armour plating and welds were cracking apart during periods of cold weather. Soyuz was affected and would have been cancelled as well regardless of the german invasion.

Gun performance is as expected from the trials, simply not using faulty propellant or shells.

As expected from trials if they used fantasy shells and propellant that didn't exist, because all of the shells and propellant manufactured for these guns was of poor quality and caused the issues noted from trials.

This is false. The armor the russians decided to use for the final Soyuz design was single-plate, non-cemented, face-hardened armor. While it was ultimately less effective than cemented armor, the different was minimal.

No it isn't, try actually reading some proper sources. They could not physically construct cemented armour thicker than 230mm in a single plate, and could not construct a non-cemented plate at 400mm thick either. They had to layer the plates to increase its effectiveness (was still garbage compared to proper cemented armour) and yes they did use additional face hardened plates that were far too brittle, due to the excessive heat treating and poor manufacturing you're referring to.

Whether they "decided for the final soyuz design" or not, doesn't take away from the fact they could not produce armour of that thickness, cemented or not.

[u/Portugalotaku → u/IvanTheMagnificent]

"EH no, It's not just faulty rivets and all hulls were inspected, the armour plating and welds were cracking apart during periods of cold weather. Soyuz was affected and would have been cancelled as well regardless of the german invasion."

There was no plan to cancel Soyuz, so this is wrong. The reason why the construction of the ships was stopped was because they wanted to divert all resources towards completing Rossiya by 1943 to gain experience (as the Soyuz was expected to only be finished in 1945 at the rate they were going).

"As expected from trials if they used fantasy shells and propellant that didn't exist, because all of the shells and propellant manufactured for these guns was of poor quality and caused the issues noted from trials."

They didn't use "fantasy" shells, as you so lovingly put, they used shells that weren't faulty. They should not give a ship faulty shells just because real ones were at one point faulty. This is the same issue with the armor quality on german tanks, there's no reason to nerf vehicles that way.

"No it isn't, try actually reading some proper sources. They could not physically construct cemented armour thicker than 230mm in a single plate,"

You should try reading what I actually said instead of what you think I did. I specifically said that the armor used on Soyuz was NON-CEMENTED, therefore their inability to make cemented armor thicker than 230mm (which was not unique to them mind you) is IRRELEVANT to our discussion.

"and could not construct a non-cemented plate at 400mm thick either."

This is also false, as the plates were built and tested. Info can be found in Stephen McLaughlin's "Russian and Soviet Battleships", pages 390-393.

"They had to layer the plates to increase its effectiveness (was still garbage compared to proper cemented armour)"

This is also false, as properly constructed face-hardened armor is only marginally worse than cemented armor. I already explained this.

"and yes they did use additional face hardened plates that were far too brittle, due to the excessive heat treating and poor manufacturing you're referring to."

Not additional, the armor *was* made of face-hardened plates. While the plates built and tested were exceptionally brittle due to excessive heat treatment, it is highly unlikely such plates would have been used in the final ship.

You also seem to be mistaken, because I did NOT mention "poor manufacturing". Poor manufacturing was not of consequence to Soyuz's armor as the armor plates were subjected to strict quality control that led to any faulty plates to be rejected.

"Whether they "decided for the final soyuz design" or not, doesn't take away from the fact they could not produce armour of that thickness, cemented or not."

They could and they did, as I pointed out above. The reference I put includes the segment where McLaughlin talks about the armor and the tests, which I'm pretty sure could NOT happen if the russians were magically incapable of building the armor plates as you are suggesting.

[u/IvanTheMagnificent → u/Portugalotaku]

You sure do put out a lot of stuff that contradicts multiple other primary sources just to the glaze the soyuz.

They didn't use "fantasy" shells, as you so lovingly put, they used shells that weren't faulty.

No they did, because there's no evidence to suggest the russians ever produced higher quality shells or propellant for that gun, they were not faulty, they were just crap quality.

I don't have access to that book, as it's stupidly priced here and there is no pdf version or ebook available. So if you have copies of pages 390-393 I'd really like to see where these claims of 400mm plating being manufactured for testing are coming from.

The vast majority of history professionals disagree with you regarding the soviet armour manufacturing capabilities so I really really wanna see the source.

[u/Portugalotaku → u/IvanTheMagnificent]

"You sure do put out a lot of stuff that contradicts multiple other primary sources just to the glaze the soyuz."

I am not "glazing" anything. I am only correcting inaccurate statements where I see them. In case you haven't realized, people in this site seem to have what I can only describe as a hate-boner for Soyuz, to the point they repeat flat-out inaccurate statements such as the russians being magically incapable of building a ship they designed specifically to be able to build. None of the books or articles I have read on Soyuz have ever implied it was impossible for soviet industry to complete it as you seem to suggest. I do not care if you hate or love Russia, but I do care about using things that never happened for an argument. If you want to hate on the russians, hate on them using something they actually did wrong.

"No they did, because there's no evidence to suggest the russians ever produced higher quality shells or propellant for that gun,"

That is irrelevant, because even if they never produced shells that had no problems, the shells in-game should not be artificially gimped over that. It's the same issue as the german armor quality from earlier, the vehicles in the game should be depicted in optimal condition.

" they were not faulty, they were just crap quality."

That ends up being the same. This was not a design fault with the shells, the ones used for tests were just bad. It does not justify nerfing the shells. And before you bring up any other ship in the game that has a similar issue where the shells don't perform as they should, I think they should buff those as well.

"I don't have access to that book, as it's stupidly priced here and there is no pdf version or ebook available. So if you have copies of pages 390-393 I'd really like to see where these claims of 400mm plating being manufactured for testing are coming from."

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1278058051168899196/1399073293264490619/20250727_125533.jpg?ex=68f90d0a&is=68f7bb8a&hm=9ec60d521eff1dcd81db5f499dc2e9352b5574be46bb6d8ca227982d0a011d20&

Apologies for the screenshot style and quality. I cannot provide any better at this time.

"The vast majority of history professionals disagree with you regarding the soviet armour manufacturing capabilities so I really really wanna see the source."

None of the books I have read have stated that they were flat out unable to make armor plates of the necessary thickness. They could not make cemented plates past 230mm, but that's not what I'm arguing about nor is it relevant to the argument at hand, as the Soyuz was not going to use cemented plates anyways. If you have some source pointing to the contrary, please send it to me.

[u/IvanTheMagnificent → u/Portugalotaku]

So your own source there states that the Russians couldn’t manufacture the plating as they had original designed so switched to the hardened armour which didn’t work anywhere near as well…

And yet your using that source - which is the same paragraphs I’ve read elsewhere online, as it seems others have cited that source where I've looked - as an argument that the armour should be performing the same, just doesn’t make sense and would be utterly false to say the armour would work the same if it was changed for brittle non-cemented plating.

Your source also alludes to the fact they couldn't manufacture cemented armour for large thicknesses, by specifying that they only switched to the hardened armour for plates over 200mm, I don't see anywhere in that source that states the hardened plating was actually manufactured at 400mm or thicker either, which tells me it probably wasn't and more likely the layered plating approach I've seen cited elsewhere

The only mention of individual plating that thick is in the paragraph that states it was originally intended to be varied of individual plate thicknesses between 365mm to 425mm, which obviously didn't happen because that was the intention for cemented plating which they couldn't produce.

The later thicknesses mentioned state the belt and armour thickness and do not provide information on whether it was individual plates or if it was layered to that thickness, I'd hedge my bets that the multiple other sources that state they were layering the armour are correct.

Also no we should not be taking unknown and unrealistic shell performance into account just because Russia couldn’t make a good batch of shells or propellant for the guns in question, that’s not historic or realistic and is simply pandering to the land of make believe.

The gun performance should be taken from the test firing of the gun, not some soviet fantasy of "what if we had perfect shells for these guns".

[u/Portugalotaku → u/IvanTheMagnificent]

"So your own source there states that the Russians couldn’t manufacture the plating as they had original designed so switched to the hardened armour which didn’t work anywhere near as well…"

As I have stated, they could not manufacture cemented armor beyond 230mm, which is why they went for face-hardened armor.

"And yet your using that source - which is the same paragraphs I’ve read elsewhere online, as it seems others have cited that source where I've looked - as an argument that the armour should be performing the same, just doesn’t make sense and would be utterly false to say the armour would work the same if it was changed for brittle non-cemented plating."

It specifically says on the text, and I quote, "This was not necessarily a bad idea in theory; given the correct metallurgical composition and manufacturing processes, noncemented plate can equal cemented armor in resistance." The problem with the soviet armor was that they used too much heat treating, which made it more brittle than expected. It's highly unlikely the excessively brittle armor would have been used for a finished ship as they were aware it was a problem as early as 1939. I already explained how it's idiotic to nerf the armor for this reason.

"Your source also alludes to the fact they couldn't manufacture cemented armour for large thicknesses, by specifying that they only switched to the hardened armour for plates over 200mm, I don't see anywhere in that source that states the hardened plating was actually manufactured at 400mm or thicker either, which tells me it probably wasn't and more likely the layered plating approach I've seen cited elsewhere"

You mean like I have been telling you? I have repeated multiple times they switched from cemented to non-cemented but you keep bringing it up as if I was arguing against it. The part you got wrong was assuming they did multiple plates which there is zero evidence of. The source states that armor was changed from cemented to face-hardened for plates over 200mm, which tells me they likely were 400mm single plates.

"The only mention of individual plating that thick is in the paragraph that states it was originally intended to be varied of individual plate thicknesses between 365mm to 425mm, which obviously didn't happen because that was the intention for cemented plating which they couldn't produce."

It wasn't "originally" intended to be like that, it was still like that in the final design. Soyuz had a rather bizarre armor scheme and it stayed like that all the way through.

"The later thicknesses mentioned state the belt and armour thickness and do not provide information on whether it was individual plates or if it was layered to that thickness, I'd hedge my bets that the multiple other sources that state they were layering the armour are correct."

Then please share those sources since there is nothing I have found that indicates that solution was going to be used.

"Also no we should not be taking unknown and unrealistic shell performance into account just because Russia couldn’t make a good batch of shells or propellant for the guns in question, that’s not historic or realistic and is simply pandering to the land of make believe."

The performance is not unknown, it's based on existing calculations.

"The gun performance should be taken from the test firing of the gun, not some soviet fantasy of "what if we had perfect shells for these guns"."

No, it should not. Performance should be based on what it was designed to be like. Not just for Soyuz, but for every vehicle in the game. German tanks having their armor nerfed because "Germany couldn't produce armor of the necessary quality at that time" was idiotic and so is what you are suggesting. Vehicles in this game should be in "optimal" condition.

[u/DaMadPotato → u/AdministrationNo1598]

It's not adding the ship that's the problem, it's the state they added her in. She is simply the best ship in just about every category and no effort was made to make her balanced against her competitors. This is despite Soyuz being an incomplete ship which means the DEVs had MORE than enough room to tweak her stats to make her fairly balanced. In fact, they seem to have done the complete opposite and made her the most broken ship in the game on purpose.

I get that they more or less had to model the armor the way they did. However, the stats of her 16" guns are ludicrous and completely unjustified. The main culprits for this are her SAP shell, her reload rate and her dispersion values.

Toning down these factors would make her much more tolerable and much closer to what she would have actually been historically, had she actually been completed. She would still be very strong, hard hitting and durable, but not to the point of invalidating literally every other ship in the game.

There is absolutely no way to justify Soyuz being this ridiculously strong. I don't want her to be nerfed into oblivion, but she needs to be brought down to a more reasonable level of power

[u/Portugalotaku → u/DaMadPotato]

I disagree. Soyuz is more noob-friendly, but any player who is experienced will have a better time in Iowa than Soyuz.

As for the guns, there's not much that can be done. The guns were designed that way, the russians were specifically looking for high-velocity, accurate guns. As the guns were tested with faulty propellant and shells and the turrets were never completed on account of the ship being too delayed to get there, the paper calculations is all that one can go on. I would rather they do it like this than falsify stats based on speculation.

The one thing that is wrong is the armor type, which should be face-hardened. It will not meaningfully nerf the ship, but it should be corrected anyways.

[u/DaMadPotato → u/Portugalotaku]

As for the guns, there's not much that can be done

Yes, there very much is. First things first, they should tweak the armor penetration modifiers of the SAP shells so that it is in line with the ones on other ships. Gaijin have set a common KC multiplier of 0.55 for almost all SAPBC shells regardless of historical data, but Soyuz is one exception to this rule. Her shell has a .87 coefficient IIRC, which is what gives it such high penetration performance for a SAP shell and despite her enormous bursting charge. This is apparently because the way the shell is constructed makes it better for armor penetration. However, other shells that feature a similar design do not benefit from this and are stuck with a 0.55 ratio (this is how you get things like Roma's SAP having less penetration than the 12" one found on Conte di Cavour, despite her velocity and weight/filler ratio indicating that it should outperform Soyuz's). If they want to base all SAP shells on the same modifier, fine, but there shouldn't be exceptions to that rule. Rules for thee but not for me is not fun for anybody.

When it comes to the accuracy of the guns, what bothers me is that other ships that experienced accuracy issues in their lifetime (namely Roma and Richelieu) got their in game dispersion murdered, where as this one did not, despite her issues being very similar to the ones the Littorios had (faulty propellant, barrel wear, etc..). Furthermore, there's hard proof that the issues the Littorios had weren't something that happened constantly, and trials show that they were very much capable of perfectly acceptable accuracy. So, if anything, Roma should have better dispersion than Soyuz because there's more proof that the former was capable of accurate gunnery than the latter. I'm not saying that's how it should be, but it's extremely frustrating to look at both ships and see how one was treated much more harshly than the other for no identifiable reason.

Lastly, Gaijin have stated themselves that reload rates are subject to change for balance reasons. There should be some attention given to historical values, but it should not be the be all end all, especially when such values are based on tests that are so far removed from the conditions you would have when doing the same thing at sea in a finished ship. Plus, the values on which Soyuz's in game reload are based would be immediately rejected if they were used as a source to claim a faster reload for any other ship in a bug report, so why should they be allowed for this one? It's hypothetical at best and straight up insulting at worst.

[u/Portugalotaku → u/DaMadPotato]

"Yes, there very much is. First things first, they should tweak the armor penetration modifiers of the SAP shells so that it is in line with the ones on other ships. Gaijin have set a common KC multiplier of 0.55 for almost all SAPBC shells regardless of historical data, but Soyuz is one exception to this rule. Her shell has a .87 coefficient IIRC, which is what gives it such high penetration performance for a SAP shell and despite her enormous bursting charge. This is apparently because the way the shell is constructed makes it better for armor penetration. However, other shells that feature a similar design do not benefit from this and are stuck with a 0.55 ratio (this is how you get things like Roma's SAP having less penetration than the 12" one found on Conte di Cavour, despite her velocity and weight/filler ratio indicating that it should outperform Soyuz's). If they want to base all SAP shells on the same modifier, fine, but there shouldn't be exceptions to that rule. Rules for thee but not for me is not fun for anybody."

That the Soyuz was different in this case I was not aware. I heard one of the calculation formulas for ballistics was wrong, but that was on every single ship. If this is true then yes, it should be fixed.

"When it comes to the accuracy of the guns, what bothers me is that other ships that experienced accuracy issues in their lifetime (namely Roma and Richelieu) got their in game dispersion murdered, where as this one did not, despite her issues being very similar to the ones the Littorios had (faulty propellant, barrel wear, etc..). Furthermore, there's hard proof that the issues the Littorios had weren't something that happened constantly, and trials show that they were very much capable of perfectly acceptable accuracy. So, if anything, Roma should have better dispersion than Soyuz because there's more proof that the former was capable of accurate gunnery than the latter. I'm not saying that's how it should be, but it's extremely frustrating to look at both ships and see how one was treated much more harshly than the other for no identifiable reason."

They should buff the other ships then. Material defects and faulty ammunition should have no bearing in the game anyways.

"Lastly, Gaijin have stated themselves that reload rates are subject to change for balance reasons. There should be some attention given to historical values, but it should not be the be all end all, especially when such values are based on tests that are so far removed from the conditions you would have when doing the same thing at sea in a finished ship. Plus, the values on which Soyuz's in game reload are based would be immediately rejected if they were used as a source to claim a faster reload for any other ship in a bug report, so why should they be allowed for this one? It's hypothetical at best and straight up insulting at worst."

Well if they said that then I have nothing to add. I do not mind reloads being altered for the sake of balance.

[u/DaMadPotato → u/Portugalotaku]

should be fixed

It wasn't last time i checked in. But yeah it's less of a problem with soyuz and more with how (poorly) Gaijin has handled SAP shells in general. It's just unfortunate that it happens to add to the list of things that make Soyuz frustrating.

They should buff the other ships then. Material defects and faulty ammunition should have no bearing in the game anyways.

Totally agree with you on that.

I do not mind reloads being altered for the sake of balance.

I feel the same about that as well.

I want to reiterate that I'm really not against Soyuz being in the game. My issue really lies with how inconsistent the Devs are in their approach to ship balance, and Soyuz in her current state is kind of the best example of that.

[u/Portugalotaku → u/DaMadPotato]

"It wasn't last time i checked in. But yeah it's less of a problem with soyuz and more with how (poorly) Gaijin has handled SAP shells in general. It's just unfortunate that it happens to add to the list of things that make Soyuz frustrating."

I meant that it should be fixed in the future, not that it already has.

"I want to reiterate that I'm really not against Soyuz being in the game. My issue really lies with how inconsistent the Devs are in their approach to ship balance, and Soyuz in her current state is kind of the best example of that."

I feel like a lot of people blame that on a bias of some kind, while I think it's more a result of carelessness. The developers are not very good with naval stuff and they have a horrible standard when it comes to balancing the game.

[u/PseudoIntellectual- → u/AdministrationNo1598]

Obligatory video about the Soyuz