Not only am I not sympathetic but I eagerly await the wine fest for good lulz. Considering
I have done far better with USN DBs, which are one of the worst, then most have done with
MN it will be even sweeter. Especially since I am far from great with bombers in the first
place. ;D

"let MN stay a BW nation since many players adjusted thier MN cv
crews according to that and making thier cv crews useless cause some players cant
deal with BWs wouldn't be fair."

Quite frankly, my sympathy with those who created an MN BW is very limited. It was obvious
from the beginning that MN bombers were only this good, because SDE was too lazy to adjust
them to the original nations. It's not about people who cannot deal with BWs, but that MN
bombers are grossly overpowered compared to the old nations. Just imagine the reaction, if
MN had a BB gun that had twice the range and better damage than all other guns. The drama
would have been stellar.

Seems fine to me. Since the manoeverability is TERRIBLE also slow.

what i here about the SN bb5 seems pretty overpowered.
alsace dmg with h44 range, L2 like submergence, a great spread and doing 39 knots
(imo 39knots isn't slow, its average) is a bit too much of good stats for one ship. Just
a low turning force is its disadvantage....dont know how big the hitbox is.

Especially since SN gets a useable 110 gunset its getting time to take a look at all
bb5s.

Regarding CVs I'm the opinion not to nerf the SN (and MN) bombers too much since
they added more variety to the game. I rather vote for a buff for all other nations
bombers. Fuel wise i would say not as much as its right now but more then its right
now. maybe a fuel in the middle between the old nations and both new nations
would be a great solution. this would allow to evade fighters but wouldn't allow cv
players to fly around the map for hours. (Another thing that is a bit of topic since it
mostly is about MN: let MN stay a BW nation since many players adjusted thier MN cv
crews according to that and making thier cv crews useless cause some players cant
deal with BWs wouldn't be fair.

hey mailman, for the Fighters we need to see T4 plane stats to compare or balance them in
line with other nations. The french as an example have terrible fuel for their T3's but
the T4 brought it back into competitiveness.

So far I've closely examined the stats between UK and SU fighters. Typically the overall
trend is Soviets have less sight range, less durability, noticeably less speed (T3 630 to
608) yet have greater firepower equal to KM (T3 160 offense).


At the end of the day these plane stats make the Soviet fighters average at best,
fragile/slow for greater damage, what I'd really like to see is proposed stats for the
Tier 4 fighters. If you were to follow the trend already set then I'd recommend a larger
fuel capacity if they are to be some of the slowest T4's. Also if they are going to have lower
plane dura/defense stats then firepower equal to US/KM would also work. Sight range could
probably stay where it's at, that being fairly low since SU are to be a top DB nation with
medium fighters.


Food for thought.

Stop using nfkr data please. It is confusing and adds nothing to the discussion.

It is totally irrelevant.

We will be adjusting SN to NFNA and not to NFKR. We will also be focussing on SN only for now, so no MN talk in
between please.

As for gun angles, they are a bit like Ijn (Yamato and sy with 45) and Us (same).
That will stay that way.

As for speed, some of the BB are obviously to fast and we will need to adjust that. The bb5 seems reasonable at
23/39 with AA (seeing h44 can do that also). The BB6 is way to fast. If the range is upped to about Nebraska
(maybe even tiny tad beyond) then the speed seriously needs to drop. At least to 23/39 or even 22/37 max. Also
since according to sde the ships should be sluggish, the turning force needs looking at.

I haven't spent enough time in BB1,2,3 yet to form a solid opinion there. But from what I have seen their drawback
is the gun layout (for the Sevastopol type of layouts). That is something we should keep in kind when working on
them.

As for the aircraft levels, that will need to be adjusted to NFNA standards, same as bomb damage. That doesn't
mean it all has to be the same as the other nations though. Small differences is something I personally would
encourage. Cloning is to easy.

Currently there is no PCL yet.

MM

It's a mistake AFAIK, as on the NFKR website it says 75. Post it on the bugs thread.

Why the SN gets T3 fighter at lv 80 and not 75?

If you didn't notice SN still has KR stats :)
so i compare it to kr stats of other nations...
mn still has KR stats as for planes, so it can't really called the first nation...

as for adapting to nf-na, we just need to apply -13% to damage (for bombs)
and -16.7% for torps... and yes i know nf-na values :)

"- Bombers like MN"
Sorry nope, Bombers seem like KM. But i must check again about speed and damage
resistance to see to which nation are they alike.
AS for DB bombs: they are EQUAL to KM (they just do 10 damage more than KM
KM t1: 3081 damage SN T1: 3091 damage
KM t2: 3390 damage SN T2: 3400 damage.
so they are equal.... i didn't check armour penetration and like, but 10 damage
difference is enough to say they are equal.


The KM bombs you written are from NFKR. If you check the NFNA one, KM has much lower values
than that:

KM t1: 2680
KM t2:2819

Even MN doesn't have that high bombs value (the MN t2 bombs have 3168). Therefore SN have
the hardest hitting bombs of all nations.

___________________

"- Torps like IJN"
Lower damage, and range of 9-10k. can't TW. Good for blitzes though.
if you talked about TB i must chec again to compare it.


Of course the damage is lower (for obvious reasons), and torping should only be in Blitz anyway.
You can never compare any naton to Kita (which works in both Bltz and GB), but if you compare its
torping capability to other nations besides from IJN, SN does the best overall.