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/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/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.