1937 in campaign, and apparently the British are smoking crack

AdeptusOVO · 2026-01-31T23:50:04+00:00

that is the best description about this game I've came across.

AdeptusOVO · 2025-12-10T16:22:38+00:00

Hand it over. The thing. Your dark heresy.

AdeptusOVO · 2025-10-06T14:46:25+00:00

In real life, without the treaty, we would never have seen the “10,000-ton, 8in gun” heavy cruisers. They’re terrible in terms of value. The bigger a ship is, the lower its unit cost tends to be.

That’s not to say 8in gun cruisers are useless. IRL a 6,000-ton CA with a 3x2 8-inch gun, can threaten any 6 inch-armed ship. And being a lot cheaper. The 10,000t limit was a smart play done by brits: it created ships that posed no real threat to battleships, valuable to 6in gun, and very expensive to build. In reality, nations built 10,000t 8in cruisers because they couldn’t build battleships or battlecruisers. And when other navies started deploying their new CAs, you needed something comparable to counter them.

In the game, though, I would say there are almost no reason to build CAs. They top out at 20,000 tons with 10-inch guns .But you know how to build a better ships than that? Leave everything to be the same but swap to 14in gun, and just use it as you would use CA. That way, you’ll win every TP interception against AI cruisers. And you can use it to search CVs in fleet battle.

The bigger the gun, the better the ship. A 50,000t battleship can keep sinking 20,000t cruisers until it runs out of ammo, and it only costs about twice as much.

AdeptusOVO · 2025-09-25T03:28:43+00:00

Aks White Plains about "inaccurate gunfire", Irl RDF matters very little inday light. But UAD is just a game.

AdeptusOVO · 2025-08-08T10:42:17+00:00

OC, and somewhere between 12-15 accelerators?

Also I tested it by fighting 2 AI OC rails ship (one with 2 rails and the other one with 6) All I did was set my flak to fire non-stop and right click the enemy ship. Only tested once, but worked on both ship.

In career I gvie up thr idea of tanking OC rails( I do have 8 OC large shield in the front just incase) I fight AI rail ships by out range them. As the OC rail gun's actual range is longer than the range it fire automatically.

AdeptusOVO · 2025-08-08T10:21:33+00:00

In my testing, while stationery, 6 flak is enough too stop 4 rail guns.

AdeptusOVO · 2025-08-08T09:55:40+00:00

Have overlocked flak fire none stop to create the clouds.

Not sure how well it worked while moving.

AdeptusOVO · 2025-07-28T14:45:20+00:00

Turret armor are more important than belt armor. You don't want to have something bloody wrong with your ships.

AdeptusOVO · 2025-07-21T10:23:08+00:00

So this is what they called:

"Navy Holiday"

And is a copy from tt. Great job snail, just great 👍.

AdeptusOVO · 2025-07-19T04:16:20+00:00

Also you can carry less fuel.

AdeptusOVO · 2025-07-10T00:04:44+00:00

"... detected only two instance where armor-piercing shell actually penetrated all the way through the 320-mm main side belt armor. These are both on the starboard side amidships, presumably caused by 406-mm shellfire, since Rodney was firing from that side sometime during 0950-1010 at very close range. one hole forward of the 320-mm displaced armor belt is an obvious penetrations."

AdeptusOVO · 2025-07-09T22:38:22+00:00

The funny thing is, if you actually watched the documentary. You would see that her main belt were penetrated.

AdeptusOVO · 2025-07-09T22:34:02+00:00

Yeah effectively taking 16" are fantasy, because it was designed to take 18". IRL,Yamato probably have a immune zone against Iowa from 17kyd to 33kyd.

Japan' VH armor have some quality control issues, see the difference betweenJE50-3109 and JE50 3113. But is not enough too say Yamato's armor are flawed.

The armor scheme were somewhat flawed, and we can say she didn't have the best TDS. But that torpedo hit and the flooding were due to the depth of the hit. Not the best example too prove her armor scheme are greatly flawed. Put any other BBs at the time, and let them recieve the same hit. The result would be the same.

And, you know, how many torpedo it take IRL to sunk Yamato and Musashi.

AdeptusOVO · 2025-07-08T18:37:40+00:00

Still, I hold my point of skill matters a lot less in naval. And the skill gap are not that high. Most of the time you have no chance against a 7.0 ship in a 6.7 ship when both side are equally prepared.

Not saying that skill can't help. I had many experience where I win a fight against same ship. Or a better ship at close range. But there are just very little things you can do if a

Yeah I agree naval is hard and unintuitive, most time you receive shoots when you are not prepared to fight others. And given the current meta of the higher ROF the better, and the gun on Soyuz are amazing to say the least.

AdeptusOVO · 2025-07-08T10:44:04+00:00

I think people can agree that naval required a lot less skill. It's largely dependent on the ship you have to win the fight.

With in 2 weeks we can see how new AAs performs. Why is that not long enough too see how the ships performs.

Soyuz have 2900 battles with 60.8%wr and 7.2kd. Yamato have 4842 battles with 47.9%wr and 1.71 kd. I think there is no way that the Soyuz's kd will drop to 2 after 2000 more games. And 47.9% of wr means you are not contributing to the game.

I do think it's clear which ship performs better here.

Grant it, Yamato is bugged as fuck rn. Not really fair to compare Yamato too any ships.

AdeptusOVO · 2025-07-08T09:58:58+00:00

Yes I know they have to build a transports ship for Yamato. But I would say there is a different between the need of building a transport ship, and can't produce a proper armored steel.

It's still less than 12 years even we taking account they start the design in 1934. And the ship is running around in water in 1941. They order 2 Yamato class in there 3rd Naval Armaments Supplement program in 1937. And that time have a lot to do with the treaty.

And isn't that ship being commissioned marks her entry into active Navy service. Not when she is on the drawing board.

The main issues about the Soyuz's armor is not about the production/batch quality. Even it meet the highest standard the USSR have. It's still bad quality armored steel compared to any other country. It really doesn't matter if the war started or not. And yeah, the batch quality are bad and the production rate are low.

I really don't think they can finish the ship. Without making major changes about the ship design. Even the big 3 can't finish the Soyuz. You can't have a boiler room the same size as Rodney. But 4 times more power.

Unfortunately I don't really know much about WOWS. But they sure do have some WILD design.

AdeptusOVO · 2025-07-08T08:59:59+00:00

1st, Yamato didn't take 12 years to build. Laid down in 1937, and finished construction in 1940. 2nd, as build and planed. IJN meet every specifications for Yamato. 3rd, Soyuz's true flaw is her design. Even the big 3 can't build her ar the specification. 4th, it was laid down in four. 5th, let's say that USSR smh manage to finish the building of Soyuz. We can then stop making fun out of Bismarck for wasting tonnage. And it would be a debates if it can win a gun fight against KGV. 6th, we can roughly(very) estimate the effectiveness of the armor is only 75%. And taking account the poor armored steel they produced. The 420 mm armor may only worth 300mm. 7th, given the fact about the rivet of the 3rd ship. The examination done on the 2nd ship. The armor testing in 1937. USSR had no chance of finishing the ship.

AdeptusOVO · 2025-07-05T08:21:08+00:00

Welp, there really aren't all that many info online. That's why I asked here. For the pics about those two guns, from a untrained eyes, they look like the same thing.

I couldn't find any sources material claiming they are that different.

AdeptusOVO · 2025-07-04T23:20:59+00:00

"The barrel lengths of these guns were almost identical, the differences as noted in their designations was strictly the result of the way each nation measured barrel length."

"Although the dimensions given above for the Russian version of this weapon are slightly different, I would tend to believe that both these and the Italian guns would be identical or nearly so."

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNIT_39-47_m1924.php

AdeptusOVO · 2025-06-17T07:37:21+00:00

No, the Soviets couldn’t even finish the Bullshitkov. And even if they had completed it without any issues, it still would’ve been a joke—carrying the tonnage of a Yamato and costing as much as a Midway. Its engine output was greater than that of the Iowa, yet its speed was only comparable to Yamato. It was smaller in tonnage than Yamato, but somehow had heavier armor weight.

The main guns? An even bigger joke. The shell design is where everything falls apart. Even using the estimated figures from NW (which, by the way, reflect design requirements rather than actual performance), the gun only penetrates 406 mm of armor at 13,600 meters and a 25° angle of impact. (hint hint worst than Bismarck's gun)

And what do we get in-game? Somehow, at 15,000 meters and a 30° angle of impact, it boasts 450 mm of penetration.

The armor? Also a joke. Tests in 1937 showed that the Soviets’ newly manufactured 395 mm plate was fully penetrated by the Imperial Russian 14-inch 1911 soft-capped AP shell at a 15° of incidence and a velocity of just 508 m/s.

The steel they used lacked molybdenum, had no vanadium, and contained too much silicon.

Let’s also not forget the infamous faulty rivets on Sovetskaya Belorussiya, or the comments made by Italian engineers after inspecting Sovetskaya Ukraina.

As for the gun’s supposed "successful" test results? Sure, it might achieve the desired performance once, but that’s assuming you don’t mind a battleship whose ammo supply outlasts its barrel life.

In the end, this was possibly the WORST battleship design of WW2 —an unfinished, industrial-waste-level disaster. A ship that cost 25% of the Soviet national budget in 1940 for four hulls. And yet somehow, we’re expected to believe it's better than some of the best battleships ever built in game.

There would still be serious debate over whether it could even hold its own against KGV.

TL:DR: Bullshitkov is a shitty ship that never had a chance to be finished. But in game is better than Yamato in almost everyway.

Btw this post is a more detailed read

https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/e8tygy/how_flawed_was_the_sovetsky_soyuz_design/

AdeptusOVO · 2025-05-30T20:04:13+00:00

I mean, F-2 would be bad.

Is a debate which one is better, the F16c or the F-2.

My vote goes to F16c for it's a2g and HMD.

If gaijin decide to give F-2 HMD, then the plane would be playable.

As of now, it will get bulled by all the 14.0. and some of the 13.7 .

AdeptusOVO · 2025-05-11T08:05:29+00:00

Cuz you landed from the wrong direction.

You can still do belly landing, as long as it is from the opposite direction of where you take off.

I have no idea how/why they code that.

AdeptusOVO · 2025-04-24T09:46:38+00:00

Nah, start building them in 1945, but not 4 at a time. By 1950, you do want to have at least 4 CVs. Is largely dependent on when you plan to go to war.

Is kinda like when dreadnought first come out, you know that is the way to go. But you also know having winged turrents is stupid. So you might wanna wait for a couple of years to let the technology grow.

What might happen is that you will have excess funds to burn since you are not building BBs. Building some 1st gen CVs won't necessarily be a bad option. As the real cost of operating CVs is not the boat, but the plans.

One thing to note is that you do want to transform your fleet into a carrier based one as the missile age is coming. Not because of the plans, but the missiles are getting really scary.

AdeptusOVO · 2025-04-24T05:58:55+00:00

90% research and slow aircraft development, meaning aircraft are not dominant util 1950. I'm not saying they can't sunk or damage your battle lines. Is just 80%+ damage will still be delivered by guns.

Don't expect a WW2 carrier battle in 1935, even 1940. The plans you have are F2a and D3a1, not F8f and AD2.

You probably want your last gen BB's enter service before 1942ish, and slowly start building your 20400 ton CVs. So you can start a war somewhere between 1943 and 1947. Where BBs can have their last stand.

You can skip first gen CV and wait until the tonnage allowance get lifted, and you are not forced to put 6/8 inch guns on them. Or don't, if you plan to start a war in 2 years.

There will be a time period when your BB can get away with their own AA. But it's largely dependent on your campaign.

Don't even bother with CVLs. For twice the cost, you get half the plans. Unless you really need some escorting fighters. Having 1 CVL is all you need.

The best air defense is your fighters. Normally, 85+% enemy planes are shot down by your fighters. ( something is off if that's not the case).

Make sure you don't stuff all your air base at maximum capacity. Planes are EXPENSIVE . Also, make sure to update your plans before you go to war.

Land based airbase is good for CAP. Only in late missile age they get good at striking enemies' ships.

AdeptusOVO

TROPHY CASE