Russian Q&A – 14/07/16

Carnotzet has translated more information from the RU server; it’s not much new stuff, and most of it involves the Gneisenau coming to the tech tree in the German battleship branch. Lots of talk about that one.

1. In a ranked fight, I saw two Myoko‘s annihilate all the enemy squadrons. I thought that ship had bad AA since it’s equipped with single 25mm guns. Are there additional factors that are taken into account when calculating a ship’s AA power ?

A. In addition to the number of AA mounts, there are other factors that come into play, for instance the type of ammunition used. In this case, we have decided to give IJN ships a slight edge. When setting the AA power of a particular ship, first and foremost we need to achieve the balance goals we’ve set for it, but we also need to try not to break away from the historical realities and maintain some consistency. I can understand if players might be somewhat lost with all of this. However, it is much more interesting to look at game characteristics, which are much more concrete, such as range and DPS, which in turn give the effectiveness of a ship’s AA.

2. Why have you decided to equip Gneisenau with 380mm guns instead of her historical 283mm ? Why don’t you give players the option to chose between the two ?

Do you really think that six guns of not even the biggest caliber will cut it at tier 7 ? Do you realize the monsters it will have to fight against ? If she’s released in her current state, she will be unplayable.

A. Here are the main reasons.

-Guns with different caliber on a single ship is bad.

-Breaking caliber progression within a single ship line is bad.


We have no desire to release unplayable ships.

 “For all of those who are not aware of this conundrum, here is a brief summary: players are questioning the developers’ decision to equip the premium ship Scharnhorst with her historical 283mm guns whereas the standard Gneisenau is planned to be equipped with 380mm guns.

More than once, we have explained that historicity cannot be entirely supported in the game for several reasons. We try to conform to historical realities or at least take them into consideration but the gameplay will always come first. In some rare cases, we have decided not to implement certain changes because of their glaring inconsistency with reality, but it happened extremely rarely. On the other hand, we try to model our ships as close to their historical counterpart as possible. Standard ships represent their class whereas premium ships represent one concrete ship in a given period.

Do some ships have errors or lack precision ? Of course. We are progressively identifying and fixing them. In our Supertesters team, we have one expert whose work for the year ahead is to fix all these little things.

Have we already deliberately forsaken historicity for gameplay ? 100% yes. As an example, we can take the AA configuration of Atago or Arizona (to make them more balanced, the first one had her AA made worse, the second one, better) or the coats of arms displayed on German ships (during combat, they were not displayed, but they are rather pleasing to the eye). There are a lot more of these examples.

The calibers on German BB’s follow the same deliberate choice.

Here are the reasons behind our decision:

1. We currently think that it is best to avoid caliber size going back and forth when advancing in a line. Regarding Scharnhorst, it’s not a problem since it is a premium ship and stands apart from the main line. Regarding Gneisenau, the problem is as follows:

283-305-305-380-380-380-406-406. This is the current caliber progression.

If we had equipped Gneisenau with her historical guns, it would be 283-3055-305-380-283-380-406-406.

When gun caliber changes drastically, players have to change the tactics they use considerably. In general, when the main gun caliber changes, it is a risky and stressful moment. Just remember for example the jumps that occur when hopping on Pensacola or Furutaka. Both ships are more difficult to learn because players have to change the way they approach these ships’ gameplay.

Let’s not forget about the enemy ships Gneisenau will face. They are equipped with 410 and 406 mm guns. In this case, a decrease in caliber can be even more off-putting.

2. One ship having more than one gun caliber size option is, sadly, a bad idea. According to our research, Mogami, which is often cited as an example, having the gameplay option between being a heavy cruiser and a HE spam monster is negatively affecting the “audience” of the ship. Now, players are talking more about the satisfaction this ships brings, how it affects their desire to get better and master the game (etc.) than the ship’s combat effectiveness.

3. We are not against sometimes releasing sisterships or developing premium ships that play like their standard counterparts. However, in this case, taking into account the arguments that were previously given, we had the opportunity to release a premium BB with an unusual gameplay (Scharnhorst + 283 mm) as well as fit a standard ship into the BB line (Gneisenau + 380 mm), which will be a logical step in regards to the lower and higher tier ships.

We believe that both ships will be interesting to play as well as being different and needing different styles and tactics. We also believe that with our current plans each of these remarkable ships will find its place.

When both ships will be made available to everyone, we will see if we were right. Currently, we have however no reason to change our plans or question them.

Thank you for your attention !”

Other people have already pointed out that the German and Russian cruiser lines contradict the argument Sub_Octavian employs here; in my opinion, the main real reason Gneisenau doesn’t have her historical 11-inch guns like Scharnhorst is to ensure more sales of Scharnhorst when she’s released. I doubt there’s any more complicated reason than that.

Sources: EU Forums Info thread, RU Forum Dev Answers thread,


7 thoughts on “Russian Q&A – 14/07/16”

  1. Thank you for sharing this information. After giving it some thought, I can agree to both lines of argument:

    – Leaving Gneisenau only with a 38cm layout is stringent in concern to the tech tree
    – besides it is not that unhistorical, as both ships were supposed to be equiped with 38cm guns, but weren’t for reasons of supply lacks
    – This way Scharnhorst will sell far better (which is a vaild consideration for a corporation)


    1. It’s going to make things super awkward when the British battleships come out. A whole mix of 15-inch, 16-inch, and 14-inch guns. I don’t see how they’ll avoid breaking their “rule” with Queen Elizabeth at tier 6 firing 15-inch guns, and somehow avoiding King George V later in the branch.


      1. Even if they did something stupid like skip the King George V in favor of the Vanguard, they’d still be jumping around in caliber. And the tier 8 BB having identical main armament to the tier 6 BB would be an even stranger adjustment for players to make given the far better armor those guns would need to overcome at tier 8.


  2. If we had equipped Gneisenau with her historical guns, it would be 283-3055-305-380-283-380-406-406

    I love this typo! I want a 3M gun on a Tier IV. Lol

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Congratulations Wargaming you failed again. I would of loved to see the Gneisenau have its historical 28.3 cm guns as stock and the 38 cm gun as an upgrade
    There would more than a decade of difference between the 38 cm SK L/45 “Max” of the Bayern and the 28.3 cm SK C/34 of the Scharnhorst class.

    This is just anough


  4. I for one LOVE the fact that the Mogami can be played with either 6-inch or 8-inch guns. And breaking caliber progression with a single ship? Do they mean like what the Kirov does in the Russian cruiser line? When we get the Royal Navy battleships we’ll have the Queen Elizabeth with 15-inch guns, then the Nelson with 16-inch, then the King George V with 14-inch, then the Lion with with 16-inch again, then whatever made-up tier 10 ship Wargaming invents to complete the line.

    They’re not fooling anybody, the only reason they’re doing this with the Gneisenau is so they can have an excuse to sell the Scharnhorst as a premium.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s