Ok, mailman, can you put this in your list.
Reduce for the CV3,4 all R gun slot down to 69. For an obvious reason, and I don't need to
explain it.

I will suggest R/T slot change after conercing cv5 and cv6.

Mostly historical actually; but when I and MM went over CV R slots, we did not look at
the historical configurations.

Quote from this webpage:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1194122521/last-
1194215884/Cancelled+Soviet+Aircraft+Carrier+Projects

Project 71 (13,200 tons)

Under the pre-1941 five year plan, two 13,000 ton carriers were to be built. Some
preliminary sketches and studies were made as early as 1936 by the TsKB-45, the
main design bureau for large surface combatants at that time.

The TTZ was issued in 1938. The ships now under project 71 would have had a
displacement of 10600 tons light, 11300 tons standard and 13150 tons full load.
Length would have been 195 meters in waterline. Armament would have consisted of
3 twin 130 mm B-24 guns, 8 single 100mm B-34 guns and four quadrupled 37mm 46-
K AA guns. Aviation assets required 30 torpedo bombers and 15 fighters. Planes
would have been stored in 148m x 18m x 6m hangar served by two lifts. Two
pneumatic catapults with a length of 24 m each, which had to give the takeoff speed
of 110 km/h to aircraft mass of at least 4 tons was also planned. These ships were
supposedly to be based on the Chapaev cruiser hulls and featured similar machinery.
Funnels were to be faced downwards as in Japanese carrier Akagi. These ships were
to be launched in 1941 and 1942. When the war broke out nothing dramatic had
been done to this project. TTZ was touched several times and in the event of the war
affected the design by e.g. adding additional AA armament to the ships. Also one
interesting note must be said at this point. When Indonesia bought a Sverdlov
(project 68bis, a post-war follower for the Chapaev class) in 1962, there were also
talks about a aircraft carrier being made from Sverdlov- class hulls. Nothing came out
of this but it raises questions as to whether it would have resampled the project 71.


Porject 72 (28,800 tons)

New TTZ(carrier program) was launched in January 1943 and was led by the doctor
of naval sciences professor Vice Admiral L. g. Goncharov. Much more intense studies
were made and results from those came the project 72. Overall dimensions the ship
would have resembled British Illustrious class as the Project 72 would have been 224
meters length (some sources state 250 meters) and 28800 tons full load
displacement. Armament was at first 8 dual 130 mm, but was later changed to 8 dual
85mm. Also 12 dual 37mm and 8 dual 23 mm AA guns were also planned. These
designs used data acquired form Germany just prior the war. Total of 60 aircraft were
thought to be stored in a 130m x 20.5m hangar. Soviet delegations visited then still
building German carrier Craft Zeppelin and also other carrier experience around the
world was studied.

In 1945 a commission was formed to submit results of the redesign of all warship
project based on the wartime experience. This also includes the carrier program. It
remains a bit uncertain whether the project 72 survived this or not. The commission
suggested that specialist be send to aboard to study allied carriers to gain more
experience. They even suggested that the soviets should try to buy or lease an
Essex class carrier from USA. Obviously these were quite unrealistic plans and
nothing came from them. Ultimately the commission proposed light, escort, fleet and
heavy carriers; the difference between light and escort carriers would have been in
terms of speed and armour.

In all thirty-three variants were developed, twenty-four for escort, three for light,
four for fleet and two for heavy carriers. For example all escort carriers would have
accommodated 24 fighters and 18 ASW aircrafts.



Project 69AV (38,680 tons)

Probably one of those proposed projects (see above) was project 69AV, aircraft
carrier based on the cancelled project 69 class battlecruiser (Kronstad) It may have
been a follow on design of the project 716. Standard displacement would have been
32000 t and 38680 tons for full load. Length was 240 meters and width 29.5 meters.
160m x 26m hangar served by three lifts which would accommodate a total of 76
aircrafts. This design was probably been one of the lighter fleet carrier designs.


Kostromitinova (51,200 tons)

Kostromitinova was also, probably one of the fleet carrier designs. It measured 280
meters length in waterline, was 40800 tons empty, 45300 standard and 51200 tons
full load. 178m x 16m hangar supported 66 fighters and 40 torpedo bombers.
Armament was to be 8 dual 152mm, 4 triple (?) 100mm, 8 quad 37mm and 22 dual
23mm. Stalin pproved Admiral Kuznetsovs suggestions that at least two carriers
should have been included for the Post-war fleet build-up. Eventually Stalin came to
a different mind and no carriers were included in the 1946-55 shipbuilding
programme.

And I also found some pictures:

http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=374&start=0

Overall, surprisingly close to historical guns.

Historically intended gun or balanced based gun?

I took the "CV: -Good CV specs (Durability etc etc)" too literally, the gunspace wasn't
changed that much actually, as most of them fit the originally intended guns.

Also, we must nerf those R slot on all the cvs, especially the small one.
It was a great mistake to buff them, when they got greater submergence than any other CV.
They got also good bombers.

Fairly small hitbox. Massive ammount of r gun slot.

I seriously don't know why Angus decided to increase the gun slot angus.


We don't really want to turn them into CA firepower with the ability to carry bombs and
fighters.

You can't use crew as a balancing tool because everything is capped.

You can't have an SN ship outranging or having equal range to a KM ship.

1 second more hangtime is not a huge difference. Hangtime can be used to your advantage
in defensive situations. Hangtime is also due to range.

Range tests have also shown that the Stalingrad > H39 range wise, the Sovietsky 100's are
> Montana range (nearer SY range), and the Sovietsky 110's are slighty greater than H44
average range.

The BB6 shouldn't have the same speed as the Kaiser.

The 12" shells need an armour penetration nerf.

IM would obviously demand a submergence nerf later on, but the DP i'm not quite in
support to decrease it, considering the SN support crew are very similar to KM
supporters crew, if leveling though a normal method with a full crew, would have
expected that IM would than perform as average as a US BB3 would did, aside of it
sizes.

BB4 12"x3 range is tested to be equal to h39 range (data current with current
server, NOT TEST server), but would all of you take note that most SN guns are
become hardly effective as their hang time are pretty long than the org. 4 nations
(e.g. while doing the test with h39, 12"x3 lands almost 1.25 secs later than h39
while fired stimulatously)

the 12"x3 may demand a spread nerf, but i'm not supporting to nerf the range, since
the stalin are just like the sovietsky, their ship specs (especially armoring ability for
like bulges, and turning forces etc.) are making them having quite a disadvantage
to against the regular 4 nation BB4, i would recall that the SN style the dev. might
have intended?

for the BB5, since i own the ship and the quad for few weeks already, and i'd like to
told all of you, the rld time is pretty much long @ the level of almost 22secs. also, like
i mentioned above, the 45' guns in SN creates extra-ordinary long hang time
compare to other equalvant 45' BB5 guns in game (SY gun land faster than SN quad
about 0.75 secs, monty is about 1) .Thus, the current spread on quad with the
current rld speed+hang time already made it almost can tagged as "ineffective" , are
aware h44 would have notice they can easily pull the sovietsky to his painful death
with that.

I'm strongly oppositing if to swap the range with x3 and the quad and to increase
the rld time to more than the current, that would made the sovietsky a total meat
along with is crap turning speed and max speed, not to mention it comparatively
weak submergence power. More over, even with the x3 on sovietsky, the current x3
are only equal to monty ranges, not SY ( every 30 shells only 7 are fall out the
average and euqal to SY range), along with the long rld time given to sovietsky gun,
the x3 do deserve a bit range buff to the SY level, but all others i did recommend to
stay still, since it spread are reasonablely acceptable(while the hang time and rld
time disadvantage still presenting).
I may be agree on the ground that to adjust the quad to 40' but than increase it rld
time to max. 23.5 secs, like i been keep highlighting along this post, the 45' hang
time are already a counter measurement for it range and power, i really see no
points to nerf the only 2 weapons sovietsky could use to kill it very last standing
ground to be tagged as a "barely useable" ship.

about the BB6, i can only read some current data from here and the first owner in
kaiser, the ship i did think demand a speed cap buff, due to it fatty size, and the gun
rld time,turning force etc. would properly serve as a good factor to be accounted for
this speed buff.

About the 12" gun shells, i don't think they need any changes at all. aside from their
diameters, say, compare to their same tier BB guns shell damage, US did 1100+ on
sodak L shells, IJN did 1100 or 1300 depends on which 16.1" you choose,UK are
pretty much no need to metion due to its nation styles, the BSM 14.96" also at least
dealt 1000+ damages. If to match the atk with their shell diamters, say, for example
to nerf the 12" to seva level (9xx per shell), than i would see no points to do other
adjustment to BB3 and 4 guns, since that would pretty much make them less
effective to hit hard on other target, although they do have extra packs of ammo
compare to other nations same tier BB.

At this stage, i agree not to touch the 12" shell at any means.

Brief:
IM -> submergence buff / not necessary to nerf DP
BB4:
12" gun -> minor spread adjustment / not necessary to adjust range/rld
ship spec: overlook a suggested
BB5:
quad: No range nerf or rld time extend/ spread minor buff / angle adjustment with
rld time maybe acceptable
x3: range buff to near SY or equal to SY / no need to adjust spread/rld
ship spec: overlook a suggested. (submergence ability a sightly weaker compare to
org. 4 nation, turning force may demand a buff)

Mailman, I will suggest you the increase percentage, later .

But if what you are going to transmit the message, is similar to the ss HE damage game
engine.
Then , I am not even going to suggest anything. Or should I urge you to tell to the
developer to stop what they are doing.


We dont want any unintended change such as 1 PHH shell doing over ~ 20k damage with 1
launcher, against SS. DB doing 8k to 10k the single bomb. 900 damage with DD/CL shells.


Can you assure me that SN ship will be similar on how the other tier BBs are?

"The problem you have is that you are too used to the BB2s BB3s and the BB4 that all have
great speed, great range, great survivability, decent spread (even at level) and great
hitting power. SNs real characteristics make the nation a defensive nation, as proven by
the BB5 and BB6.

Its like jumping into the H39 from the AD: completely different gamestyles. "

Pretty much this...

"I guess its time to quit banging my head again a brick wall about
speed being important (it would also help if people learned to read)... Each to his own.."

Maybe you'd speak some sense if you did....

It's like saying this.

A 47 knot Sodak is superior to a 42 Knot Iowa, despite the Iowa having significant range
advantage, spread advantage, and damage advantage.