Diligently I logged today to find only siriusa present for the CV test, so after reading firefox's forum post i was able to get Rehor and devils to help me test as a grp of 4.
As far as Planes go DragonStar made an excellent post for plane stat changes -> http://www.navyfield.com/board/view.asp?Num=191641&Sort=C07&Order=re_upday&PageSize=20&Page=1&Ctg_1=&Ctg_2=&Ctg_3=
d/l link for spreadsheet --> http://www.megaupload.com/?d=NG8YITJA
The testing we did today was more ship orientated (submergance, HE def, aaw, armour/speed) with some fighter duels between SU T3 and KM/US T3 and T4 fighters all lvl120.
**Fighter Results SU T3 planes have approx 2min 12sec fuel or 132 seconds total, which gives them the highest fuel capacity of all T3's. If we are to follow the national trait Soviets have joint lowest fuel with UK, ergo they should be closer to 119 secs fuel.
SU T3 engaged US/KM T3's with a win/loss ration of 0.9/1 almost consistantly but required a great deal of micro to keep the SU fighters tight (more on this later).
SU T3 engaged US/KM T4's with a win/loss ration of 1.1/1 bizzarly they did better. This can probably be explained because T4's have less health and the SU T3's have joint highest offense, (possible to 1 shot low health KM/US T4's)
*supplementary info, the SU T3 fighters I have found to have low enegagement range, somewhere between interceptors and normal fighters, this makes micro an issue when attempting to break engagement and re-engage... if your not careful your waves can get split with one or more waves flying entirely away from the dogfight and haveing to be re-re controlled and sent back into the fight. <-- ie bad
tl dr; -> SU T3 do bad against other T3 and better against T4 (km/us) of same pilot skill &level. Low engagement range means more micro to keep fps tight & under control. Fuel changed to 119 sec.
**CV 5 ship testing results We tested submergance, He def and AAW with a control against the UK CV Malta and UK t2 TB's for aaw. A soviet bb5 with lvl110 guns (manned by rehor) fired for submergance values and HE def.
*AAW* SU CV5 AAW is stated at 324, Malta is 283? (hard to read text) and Frenchies are 341. (needs to be lowered for both MN and SU).
The SU CV5 easily killed UK T2 tbs flying at sea level over the deck of said carrier, the AAW easily killed all 10 tbs on the first pass. Personally I was supprised because UK Tb's especially at 105 can fly literally over anything and not take a hit.
*HE defense* The lower the values here the better. The SU CV5 has a HE def value of 998, the Malta 2368! and the MN 1241. This makes the SC CV5 noticable more durable when fired against than the Malta. Even thou the malta has 24500 HP and the SU CV5 24100, SU would live longer against standard BB fire.
*Submergance* The lower the values here the better. From Rehor's calculations the Malta has a submergance value of 3474, which according to him is inline with other BB5's of the core nations (ie not MN). The SU CV5 has a submergance value of 2982!
What does this mean? Well 4 shells fired from the Soviet BB5 with lvl110 quad guns against the Malta did consitantly 18k damage (all deck hits). Shots against the SU CV5 did consistantly 15~16k damage!
*Armour & Speed* SU CV5 with level 120 crew and HH on the gun slots with 10 ammo, approx 150 bulge and 0.4 belt / 0.4 deck at max possible displacement. Without engi at 31knots overheat (ie slow compared to malta's 34). With a 105 engi (ran out of 120 sailors) the CV5 goes 35 knots.
**end results That's all we achieved without futher guidance on what needs looking at. Personally I feel we need to know the submergance values of the CV4 PCV and CV6. As well as possible displacement and armour with at level and fat lvl120 crews, with and without engis.
Fara.
|