First time on the channel, and I gotta say: what a fantastic presentation! Detailed, methodical... Half an hour just went in a second. Oh, and the cartoon thumbnails are funny. Your channel is going up, man.
Yo clyde i really appreciate the time and effort into this video, got you in my recommended and earned a sub for how good you explained everything my friend
So, regarding the Sevastopol's tanking ability, in what I've experienced from playing it so far, this ship isn't supposed to just absorb hits, but instead operate in open water and use its stealth and maneuverability to avoid being hit in the first place; this is probably why it was given the quick-burning French speed boost and the slow-burn repair party while deprived of the characteristic Russian icebreaker. The moment I swapped out slot 4 for the acceleration module and slot 5 for the rudder module and started playing it like a Battlecruiser, I found myself having far more success with the Sevastopol then when I simply sat in place and try to act like my repair party was going to save my life when a Battleship paid attention to me; I feel like the point of the Sevastopol is to inject some Soviet-flavored mobility play into a Tier X Supercruiser and once I started applying this mindset to the ship by constantly remaining on the move and evading shots through effective use of my rudder and throttle, I found this ship performing far better than first impressions had me believing. This ship is far different from its contemporaries at the same tier and I think that trying to play it like one of the other ships is a recipe for disappointment. Regarding anti-air, I tend to spec my ships into anti-air regardless of what the ship is or what the rating says; as a result I rarely have issues with Carriers as the anti-air on my ships is typically beefed-up to the point that it will do something to the Carrier one way or the other and as a result Carriers tend to leave me alone much to my dismay. In the Sevastopol's case, the anti-air is not as good as the competition, but it's also not bad in the least; it's entirely composed of long and medium range mounts and, despite not having quite as many flak bursts, I find it chews through planes quite quickly, especially if you run DFAA. I've been playing the ship in Ranked and I find it to be quite effective as a stealthy flanker that uses its speed to get around the map quickly and into places that are very inconvenient for the other team, at which point they either need to deal with me or ignore me, both of which are a win for me because I either gain their attention and leave them open to be crossfired or I'm given the luxury of being able to choose when I want to citadel one of their ships with broadside shots. Personally, I think this ship is quite good for competitive play provided it is not played like any other Russian ship; it's a strange chimera of British, French, and Russian Cruiser archetypes all rolled into one extremely unique package, as a result it almost needs a playstyle of its own.
Slot five concealment I still find to be important for Sevastopol, so you can stealth at times to wait out the heal cooldown. You can then use the speed to relocate and pop up in the next awkward location for the enemy - which I find has been the key for success in this ship. Sevastopol loves to be the ship that flanks and punishes broadsides, pushes enemies out of their otherwise comfortable bow-in tanking or kiting positions. For that, concealment is very useful in my experience.
I do feel like there are things that have been omitted that should have made a big difference in the calculus. The improved penetration angles on the Sevastapol, Petro and Stalingrad should have been given consideration, especially as it is the most defining characteristic for AP performance. Sevastopol and Petro both have slightly improved angles, making them more likely to be able to avoid ricochets. Stalingrad, in particular, has especially good angles. This is significant in a head-on nose in fight, the Moskva cannot use its back turret without running the risk of eating AP citadels from any of the other 3 cruisers. (Moskva's back turret needs 30 degrees to fire, which is NOT within auto-bounce territory for the other cruisers, while the other 3 cruisers can use their back turrets comfortably without risking being citadel-ed) Fuse timers are also an important metric to determine the AP performance against light cruisers. Petro and the Stalingrad have a much shorter fuse timer on their AP shells, allowing them to get less over-penetrations and citadel those pesky Smolensks and Minotaurs consistently. Lastly, while I don't have a problem with ranking the Stalingrad as the best Soviet T10 cruiser, I do find it absurd to classify the Moskva as 'better' to the Petro. The Petro is shorter and narrower than all of the other cruisers, and almost has stealth radar. (12.4 km conceal with full stealth build and 12 km radar, leaving only a 400m radius for enemy DDs to operate.) And while technically Moskva still has an edge with the 30s radar duration, its hardly difficult for a DD to avoid being caught when Moskva can be spotted from 14.8km away. With that being said, Im just a potato player, and have much to learn about the game, but I would consider the Petro to be far more versatile ship than the Moskva.
Hey James - good points! I did look at the AP angles and fuse times, and honestly should have mentioned them in the video - even if I wasn't going to award points for them. I ended up not including them because the guns category already had 8 points and I didn't want to "overweight" that category against the others. I love your reasoned argument about Petro vs Moskva, and I wouldn't want anyone to come away from this review that Petro is a bad ship. She's excellent, and the gap between her and Moskva is just one point! I think many players - potato (like me) or not - would agree with you. To be fair to Petro, one issue with her representation here is that she suffered from being second best in LOTS of categories: second best reload time, second best DPM, second best dispersion, second best concealment, second best AA (although she won that category), second best rudder shift, and second best turning radius. In a way, this points to a weakness in the comparison math, which could certainly be more robust to credit ships for things like being second best. In the end, I decided to keep it simpler, and chat with viewers in the comments. :D Thanks again for your well thought out comment! Good luck out there in battles!
This video got you my sub. Incredible deepdive, great grading, and a big help for my research. I am currently struggling with the choice between Slava and Sevastopol. Already have Druid and Ohio, and I adore both, but the next choice is a tough one.
Good luck with your choice! If you enjoy long-form, podcast style discussions on RP boats, check out this recent episode of Ship Show from a couple weeks back: ua-cam.com/video/ARgvXF3tc9E/v-deo.html
thnx for this, was wondering about sev. i think ill get her, with the 380s overmatching most cruisers and the zombie heal, plus the speed and stealth, i think ill have a lot of fun with her! ;)
I am closing on RP for a new ship (I have Ohio, Colbert and the DDs already). I am looking at Slava and Seva. Based on this video I am now leaning to Seva. I already discounted getting Gibraltar and Sioe3gfried.Thanks for the help comparing these.
Clyde, great video and great to see you able to get comparisons like this up on day 1! I was thinking of how you organised this comparison as well as the Russian DD comparison from a few months back. I’m thinking comparisons like this are naturally set up to favor more generalist/all-round ships rather than those that specialize heavily into a gimmick. I kind of see that here where the scores at the end are all within the same ballpark but the most gimmicky (Sevastopol in this case) winds up in the back. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if WG’s internal balancing spreadsheet looks something like this. The best part of this is looking at the gimmick, figuring out how to take advantage of it, and deciding whether it makes up for the trade offs, which I think you did pretty well. Going forward I’d love to see you lean into that side of it even more. Once again, great video and thanks!
I agree and I made several (small) changes to how I did this comparison from the last one, many driven by user comments that poked at how the math worked out - all good-naturedly of course. This comparison is slightly better than the Tier 10 Soviet DD discussion, and I'm hoping the next one will be better as well. The method used in this video does a great job of comparing individual stats and then aggregating them, but struggles to award points to a ship that's really focused on a single thing (I can only imagine how Paolo Emilio would suffer in a premium DD comparison). Essentially, this system doesn't always paint the most accurate picture of what I'll refer to as a "compound capabiity." Take Sevastopol for example, she has four things that make her survivable, but those things and how they are used are somewhat unconventional: 1 - Mega Zombie Heal 2 - Excellent Concealment (11km, when spec'd) 3 - Speed Boost that feels like its always available. 4 - A long reload time of 25 seconds base. As a compound capability - you can imagine how to use these three together, a "push" in sev doesn't mean getting under 10km - it means getting to within 13-15km and then when theings get too spicy you can escape using your stealth and speed to heal up and come back in to do it again, almost like a giant, gun-based Paolo run on a much slower scale. Interestingly, the 25 second reload, though largely a DPM detriment, helps with this - because its longer than the 20 second gun bloom effect, which means that after each salvo you have time to figure out if you can stay in the fight because you'll go dark after every shot. You can even use that that like UK battlehips do to frustrate enemy battleships and cruisers trying to lob long shells at you. .... hmmm, i probably should have included that concept in the video..... Thanks Hanks, appreciate the comment!
Thanks for the feedback. I am hopeful Clyde will use his new CC powers for doing reviews on new things this way and continue to do these kind of comparisons.
Nice review, I am a crazy tester person in training rooms, and I have too say when built fully for AA petro wins easily in shooting down the most planes.
Very interesting comparison, and I like all of these ships :-) For the Moskva, I wasn't sure if you were taking into account it's unique upgrade? That really impacts it.
That's a good point, i didn't include her unique upgrade, although i do run it on my ship. Getting into specific builds makes these kinds of comparison videos very complicated, unless you just assume everyone uses your same build.
One thing that wasn't talked about was penetration. You'd think having the bigger guns would make Sevastopol the winner here but that's only the case at distances above 14km. Somehow at shorter distances Stalins 305's and even Petros 220's can punch deeper into metal. Another gun aspect that wasn't touched on is gun handling. While it's Moskva that has the fastest turning turrets (all are really slow for cruisers tbh), the utility of having full 360° mounts on Petro just makes it feel the most comfortable at keeping all guns on target.
@@ClydePlays Another gun stat that I just remembered exist is the improved pen angles that Stalin, Petro and Sev gets but Moskva doesn't. (Moskva really trading a lot for her higher DPM compared to the others here)
Great review Clyde, I would like to get the Sevastopol, just not there yet. I don't reset lines so it take me a long time to get the research points for a ship, I do have enough for this ship. Are any of the other cruisers worth getting?
For RPs, I only have Sev and Hector. Both very different ships, but both are fun. Between those two, MOST players would probably prefer Sev as Hector is just so specialized for light cruiser fans. I think my next ship will be Colbert - (I like light cruisers) and then it'll be a toss up between Siggy and Gibraltar.... Though both have their purposes.... If you want 380s without the gimmick of the crazy heal.... Siegfried could be a solid choice for you. Good luck whatever you choose!
For the Sevastopol, I have been very happy with getting it from the research bureau. It has the speed and concealment to do a lot on a flank and pop up in unexpected places. And when it gets there, the guns and alpha to really punish. Thinking about that for your comparison, have you thought about a category like that? What is the alpha strike capability? You cover most of it individually, but I see it as a combination of how close you can get, total AP damage, ability to hit the target / accuracy / sigma, and penetration for the citadel broadside armour of a ship - not so much then about overmatch. I don't know if Sevastopol would win that, but I have certainly been enjoying that the most about the ship 🙂 And for the Sevastopol, after delivering that big alpha strike, I can reliably get away - using the speed, concealment and heal. But the enemy ship will typically run to the back line (or die from my follow up shots if it stays parked), which can cause significant disruption to the enemies line of battle. This means the Sevastopol can be very interesting for making the battle flow in the way you want. Add the healing, so the Sevastopol is almost always there to the end of the game, and I think there is some potential for at least clan battles - I am already really enjoying it in ranked.
NGL, would love a breakdown like this for other ships. USN BBs for one. Would be interesting to watch. Makes me feel better about my Moskva Coal purchase. Been so busy trying to do other things I haven't had time to take her out
All four of these ships are pretty good at something. I think Moskva is perhaps the most versatile and personally, I love the guns/reload coupled with the 30s radar. You made a good choice in picking it up.
First youtuber that makes an objective review of Sevastopol. For me if you want RB ships the pick would be Ohio, Slava, and Sevastopol if there is no other better ship. 6 guns ships have small impact for the team, you have to wait for that perfect broadside all game and end up with under 100k dmg and a defeat. In the current meta when people tend to play far from caps, Sevastopol is kinda useless, cant support the DDs with radar, cant tank like Stalin or Petro, not a really good investment for your RB points. Great and honest video.
Really interesting analysis. I personally prefer Moskva; the faster reload and dpm feels better when trading gunfire, she also accelerates and turns better, so can jink forwards and backwards better, and also means she can kind of kite, plus the fire duration, good armour and radar/gun reload ratio just make her a better all round choice; she can do more than just anchor a corner and refuse to die. I don't dislike Stalingrad or Petro, Moksva is just a better fit for me as a player.
Moskva is very solid. None of these ships is a "bad" ship - but I think they speak to different players/styles. I am not the strongest player in any of these four, tbh, but have enjoyed many battles in Moskva and Stalingrad over the years. I just need to be more consistent in them. I always try to pull some wacky DD maneuver and predictably, it never works out, heh.
Nice video, love my Moskwa. One question though, did you not mention alpha damage for the guns on purpose when comaring them or was that sort of covered with the calibre?
It's true, I didn't include damage for guns - I went back and forth on that, because I didn't want to award points for DPM, HE Max Damage, AP Max Damage etc....which would have skewed damage value higher. I probably should have still mentioned it tho! For your information: Petro Max Damages: AP=6,350, HE=3,050 Moskva Max Damages: AP=5,800, HE=3,100 Stalingrad Max Damages: AP=9,200, HE=4,500 Sevastopol Max Damages: AP=11,300, HE=5,350
@@ClydePlays thanks! Another question :), did u mention speed? I think u jumped straight into the engine boost Anyway, for me the Moskwa is the jack of all trades. With the radar fully upgraded to 39 seconds I surprise enemies and team mates alike
@@riquelmeone I intended to mention it if I didn't! There was a point awarded for speed, it went to Stalingrad. You can see the full comparison here: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZIykK7L1hkxYywiNYOIrqjRlXOQJFpFVTSbxln8h-OQ/edit?usp=drivesdk
Hey Fiesty, I actually use a Shure SM58 microphone on my desk to capture the audio for my videos. Technically, there are better video/podcasting mics, but I had this one laying around from my garage band days, and its a great little microphone. Here's an (affiliate) link: amzn.to/3JByswl Thanks for the feedback on the audio quality!
Stalingrads better AA numbers is kneecapped by the distribution of the damage. Petro has 176 dps on the 6.6km long range AA and 224 dps on the 4km medium range AA and no short range AA. While Stalingrad has 173 dps on 6.6km long range, 183 dps on 3.5km medium range AA and 143 dps on 3.1km short range AA. This means that Petros AA does all of it's damage out to a range of 4km, while Stalingrad does it's full damage only out to 3.1km. If one chooses to run DFAA on the ships, the DPS boost on Petro is also 150% and if I recall it's only 125% on Stalingrad. Another thing that was missed during the armor section is that you didn't talk about the hidden plates within the bow and stern of the cruisers (for the record, Sevastopol doesn't have any, but the others do). These hidden plates can and will affect how the ships interact with AP shells.
Yep. Stalingrad does well with its AA when its actively under attack by planes that have to come close, whereas Petro can affect those planes at a greater distance. You are also correct on the DFAA boost percentage. Stalingrad has a reduced effectiveness (125% vs the other ship's 150%) - in fact, its the ONLY cruiser equipped with DFAA in World of Warships with a 125% boost, that adjustment to her capability is unique to Stalingrad. All other ships have a 150% boost except San Diego, whcih has a 200% boost. Thanks for your comment.
Agree - that would be an interesting comparison. I don't have Siegfried, but suspect it could be an interesting competition - especially as both are RB ships - even though Siggy is a tier down.
The "improved pen angles" of Sevastapol save it from being a worse version of the Siegfried, tier for tier. The pen angles are the main story comparing the two, not the hull repair. Siegfried has huge problems penetrating much of anything that's angled. If Siegfried had the improved pen angles that Sevastopol does on its 380s I wouldn't regret that waste of 47k research points. Because of the pen problems, Siegfried is a bloated brown trout at tier 9. I admit that it got me through Bronze and Silver leagues this ranked season, but never again.
Big fan of doing this sort of review in this manner, and doing a comparison so that normies like me can get an idea of how a new ship that is a big investment plays compared to something else in my port. I hope now that you are a CC and can do new ship review content that you continue to do it this way and not just do a port walk through/captain build/and highlight reel style vid.
Sev having the speed boost, hydro and long duration health. Seems like she needs a specific playstyle Mainly pushing, flanking while popping the heal as you are pushing and getting burned down. Again you still need to be really aware of enemy position and choose the right time to push. But this can be situational and can be hard if the enemy team got agood low conceal dd or have a cv that focus or constantly spot you. Kind of like incomparable (fast squishy needs good flanking and positioning) gameplay or even Alaska, good guns but again low dpm, guns do punish broadsides. Cannot win against multiple ship firing at you though. Needs to hug island and focus 1 ship at a time. Again if cv exist you can be focused. Sev can play like that too.
Agree with these points - I had several poor games in the ship as I was getting the hang of what she could and couldn't do. I think you're fairly spot on, but I will say a certain comfort with the "heal and rest" pattern of the ship is required because of the long heals and longer cooldowns.
Obviously, I don't have the the Sev, but I have the others. Stalin can be awesome, guns are AMAZING, but is SOO situational. I've had amazing games (for me), but also pretty poor whne HE spammed or left alone with a DD. I find that I keep playing Petro and Moskva, depending on what we're looking for. Moskva is the better all around and the Radar (which upgrade mod is amazing) and the legendary mod is also huge. But sometimes you're looking for a tanky, almost a BB. That's the Petro. It's the standard cruisers I'm going to run. Don't know if I'll spend the points for Sev or not.
Stalingrad is the king but Petropavlovsk is awesome it gives a similar type of experience and so I would think to get Incomparable because that thing is really super Repulse
Stalin is still the one of the best for competitive, imo. She has actually lost a lot of her luster in randoms though. Sev is fun in randoms but not good for ranked or CBs. Moskva and Stalin are still the 2 best for competitive imo.
Stalingrad is way strong and has been for years - same with Moskva. I think you could get away with Sev in lower ranked, tiers but not up in Gold - although i think most would agree with you.
He forgott the horizontal and vertical dispersion and there is a huge difference between these ships. ... wrote it before here, but my comment vanished, no idea why, i didnd sayd anything wrong
Hey Andreas - I covered dispersion at 26:45 (both horizonal and vertical dispersion). I awarded a single point for a combined dispersion value (vertical x horizontal) - Moskva and Sevastopol took those points, with both ships tying for the best horizontal dispersion (116m) and vertical dispersion (61m). Petro also had 61m vertical dispersion but had worse horizontal dispersion (129m). Stalingrad has the worst dispersion in the group (149m / 77m). With respect to your previous comment - I'm not sure what happened to it? I didn't moderate or remove any comments just about the ship's technical specifications.
Thanks for the info. I was interested in Sev when it was first announced. But, since it will be for RB points it is "DEAD IN THE WATER" for me. IMO the RB is the worst resource WG has added to the game. It is not a benefit to the game and is only a drain on time and resources to the player base. Did the RB grind once for the Ohio and will not do it again. Already have the Petro, Moskva and Stalin so I will be happy to just continue playing them.
I would rather have RB instead of WG asking us to shell out more money. F2p players can ultimately get these ships since it is more time and xp gated instead of money gated.
never played Sevastopol, Moskva and petro are super boring, and for my Novosibirsk I actually mounted the range module because at 19 km stock range I get super focused immediately and was actually struggling simply to survive.
It's a bunch of cruisers that tend to be decent in clans and a bit underwhelming in randoms. Decent staying power in most of them, I haven't tried my Novo in randoms yet but I did employ it in clans this last season. Sev is different from the rest in that she's stealthy and she likes to be mobile. She's not quite as tanky as the others in certain situations too. I've got another vid with lots of detail about Sev if you want to know more about her.
Choosing a pixel ship by means of quantifying ship characteristics is an inherently flawed methodology for this purpose. Judging the power or capability of a ship is the question that has to be answered. You can, and do, illustrate how experience and impression drive the decision to acquire, and the numbers validate, but don't and shouldn't drive those decisions for most of us. While I appreciate the level of detail and the informed analysis, preferences and impressions don't lose their value in assisting with the decisions of choosing what's best, or best for me. Your work is good, Clyde, but the value of this analysis is limited compared to what your playing impressions would be.
You are very correct Dale. This was a very early video in my "figure out how to compare and contrast ships" process. The thing I liked (and still like) about this early video is that it cuts through the rumors and hearsay which are so prevalent in WOWS circles today. That being said, you have correctly identified this method's greatest weakness. Even now, with my newer Hot Take videos I'm continuing to try to find better and better ways to represent the ships, both factually and in terms of feel/impressions. One day, I'll make the perfect ship review. When I do, it'll be a balance of all of these goals. Thanks for the feedback, and for watching.
I think there are MANY players who will agree with you. I'll be adding it to my port, but mostly because its an oddity. I suspect I won't play 100+ games in her tho.
I believe Sev won't be used for competitive for one simple reason, it can't deal with DDs alone, the long reload and lack of radar and torps makes it almost imposible to fight against a Yolo DD In comparison to the other Soviet cruisers with long rane radars and faster firing hard hitting HE guns
I agree, that is a weakness for the ship. Even with radar, the long reload on radar ships such as Alaska or Stalingrad makes dealing with DD difficult for those ships to deal with DDs alone, (though Alaska's relatively long radar run time helps). IMHO, coordinated DD work along with fire from ships/captains that know how to pen the armor of Sev will make her difficult to use in competitive, with Ranked the most likely game mode to feature Sevastopol. Thanks for your comment!
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
ATTENTION! The overmatch of Sev was incorrectly reported as 23mm in the video, the ship actually overmatches 26mm of armor.
oh, that's interesting, would be nice to see a video fighting a DM or Salem 1vs1
@@rodrigotirao dm has 27mm bow and stern and 30 mm casetmate and deck. Sevastopol cant overmatch DM or salem anywhere.
First time on the channel, and I gotta say: what a fantastic presentation! Detailed, methodical... Half an hour just went in a second. Oh, and the cartoon thumbnails are funny.
Your channel is going up, man.
Thanks Richardsen! Welcome to the channel!!
Yo clyde i really appreciate the time and effort into this video, got you in my recommended and earned a sub for how good you explained everything my friend
Heyyyyyyy, glad you enjoyed! Welcome to the channel!
The video just started but i said Clyde must be crazy for putting this title on this video lol
I do believe that Wows will be a generational game … hopefully
Yeah, looking back that title is a bit more click-baity than I usually go for. Hopefully you enjoyed the vid!
So, regarding the Sevastopol's tanking ability, in what I've experienced from playing it so far, this ship isn't supposed to just absorb hits, but instead operate in open water and use its stealth and maneuverability to avoid being hit in the first place; this is probably why it was given the quick-burning French speed boost and the slow-burn repair party while deprived of the characteristic Russian icebreaker.
The moment I swapped out slot 4 for the acceleration module and slot 5 for the rudder module and started playing it like a Battlecruiser, I found myself having far more success with the Sevastopol then when I simply sat in place and try to act like my repair party was going to save my life when a Battleship paid attention to me; I feel like the point of the Sevastopol is to inject some Soviet-flavored mobility play into a Tier X Supercruiser and once I started applying this mindset to the ship by constantly remaining on the move and evading shots through effective use of my rudder and throttle, I found this ship performing far better than first impressions had me believing.
This ship is far different from its contemporaries at the same tier and I think that trying to play it like one of the other ships is a recipe for disappointment.
Regarding anti-air, I tend to spec my ships into anti-air regardless of what the ship is or what the rating says; as a result I rarely have issues with Carriers as the anti-air on my ships is typically beefed-up to the point that it will do something to the Carrier one way or the other and as a result Carriers tend to leave me alone much to my dismay. In the Sevastopol's case, the anti-air is not as good as the competition, but it's also not bad in the least; it's entirely composed of long and medium range mounts and, despite not having quite as many flak bursts, I find it chews through planes quite quickly, especially if you run DFAA.
I've been playing the ship in Ranked and I find it to be quite effective as a stealthy flanker that uses its speed to get around the map quickly and into places that are very inconvenient for the other team, at which point they either need to deal with me or ignore me, both of which are a win for me because I either gain their attention and leave them open to be crossfired or I'm given the luxury of being able to choose when I want to citadel one of their ships with broadside shots.
Personally, I think this ship is quite good for competitive play provided it is not played like any other Russian ship; it's a strange chimera of British, French, and Russian Cruiser archetypes all rolled into one extremely unique package, as a result it almost needs a playstyle of its own.
Slot five concealment I still find to be important for Sevastopol, so you can stealth at times to wait out the heal cooldown. You can then use the speed to relocate and pop up in the next awkward location for the enemy - which I find has been the key for success in this ship. Sevastopol loves to be the ship that flanks and punishes broadsides, pushes enemies out of their otherwise comfortable bow-in tanking or kiting positions. For that, concealment is very useful in my experience.
Another great review of the ships.👍
Big Clyde! I been saving research points for 9 months ! I will have it the day it drops!
You and me both Nuñez!
I do feel like there are things that have been omitted that should have made a big difference in the calculus.
The improved penetration angles on the Sevastapol, Petro and Stalingrad should have been given consideration, especially as it is the most defining characteristic for AP performance. Sevastopol and Petro both have slightly improved angles, making them more likely to be able to avoid ricochets. Stalingrad, in particular, has especially good angles. This is significant in a head-on nose in fight, the Moskva cannot use its back turret without running the risk of eating AP citadels from any of the other 3 cruisers. (Moskva's back turret needs 30 degrees to fire, which is NOT within auto-bounce territory for the other cruisers, while the other 3 cruisers can use their back turrets comfortably without risking being citadel-ed)
Fuse timers are also an important metric to determine the AP performance against light cruisers. Petro and the Stalingrad have a much shorter fuse timer on their AP shells, allowing them to get less over-penetrations and citadel those pesky Smolensks and Minotaurs consistently.
Lastly, while I don't have a problem with ranking the Stalingrad as the best Soviet T10 cruiser, I do find it absurd to classify the Moskva as 'better' to the Petro. The Petro is shorter and narrower than all of the other cruisers, and almost has stealth radar. (12.4 km conceal with full stealth build and 12 km radar, leaving only a 400m radius for enemy DDs to operate.) And while technically Moskva still has an edge with the 30s radar duration, its hardly difficult for a DD to avoid being caught when Moskva can be spotted from 14.8km away. With that being said, Im just a potato player, and have much to learn about the game, but I would consider the Petro to be far more versatile ship than the Moskva.
Hey James - good points! I did look at the AP angles and fuse times, and honestly should have mentioned them in the video - even if I wasn't going to award points for them. I ended up not including them because the guns category already had 8 points and I didn't want to "overweight" that category against the others.
I love your reasoned argument about Petro vs Moskva, and I wouldn't want anyone to come away from this review that Petro is a bad ship. She's excellent, and the gap between her and Moskva is just one point! I think many players - potato (like me) or not - would agree with you.
To be fair to Petro, one issue with her representation here is that she suffered from being second best in LOTS of categories: second best reload time, second best DPM, second best dispersion, second best concealment, second best AA (although she won that category), second best rudder shift, and second best turning radius. In a way, this points to a weakness in the comparison math, which could certainly be more robust to credit ships for things like being second best. In the end, I decided to keep it simpler, and chat with viewers in the comments. :D
Thanks again for your well thought out comment! Good luck out there in battles!
Nice video Clyde thanks for the heads up..
I think this is an honest comparison. Thanks.
Great video Thanks Clyde.......
Glad you like it!
This video got you my sub. Incredible deepdive, great grading, and a big help for my research. I am currently struggling with the choice between Slava and Sevastopol. Already have Druid and Ohio, and I adore both, but the next choice is a tough one.
Good luck with your choice! If you enjoy long-form, podcast style discussions on RP boats, check out this recent episode of Ship Show from a couple weeks back: ua-cam.com/video/ARgvXF3tc9E/v-deo.html
thnx for this, was wondering about sev.
i think ill get her, with the 380s overmatching most cruisers and the zombie heal, plus the speed and stealth, i think ill have a lot of fun with her! ;)
She's pretty wacky - but I think a fun ship.
Great assessment
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed the vid. :D
I am closing on RP for a new ship (I have Ohio, Colbert and the DDs already). I am looking at Slava and Seva. Based on this video I am now leaning to Seva. I already discounted getting Gibraltar and Sioe3gfried.Thanks for the help comparing these.
Glad it was useful for ya! Thanks for watching.
Clyde, great video and great to see you able to get comparisons like this up on day 1! I was thinking of how you organised this comparison as well as the Russian DD comparison from a few months back. I’m thinking comparisons like this are naturally set up to favor more generalist/all-round ships rather than those that specialize heavily into a gimmick. I kind of see that here where the scores at the end are all within the same ballpark but the most gimmicky (Sevastopol in this case) winds up in the back. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if WG’s internal balancing spreadsheet looks something like this.
The best part of this is looking at the gimmick, figuring out how to take advantage of it, and deciding whether it makes up for the trade offs, which I think you did pretty well. Going forward I’d love to see you lean into that side of it even more.
Once again, great video and thanks!
I agree and I made several (small) changes to how I did this comparison from the last one, many driven by user comments that poked at how the math worked out - all good-naturedly of course. This comparison is slightly better than the Tier 10 Soviet DD discussion, and I'm hoping the next one will be better as well.
The method used in this video does a great job of comparing individual stats and then aggregating them, but struggles to award points to a ship that's really focused on a single thing (I can only imagine how Paolo Emilio would suffer in a premium DD comparison). Essentially, this system doesn't always paint the most accurate picture of what I'll refer to as a "compound capabiity." Take Sevastopol for example, she has four things that make her survivable, but those things and how they are used are somewhat unconventional:
1 - Mega Zombie Heal
2 - Excellent Concealment (11km, when spec'd)
3 - Speed Boost that feels like its always available.
4 - A long reload time of 25 seconds base.
As a compound capability - you can imagine how to use these three together, a "push" in sev doesn't mean getting under 10km - it means getting to within 13-15km and then when theings get too spicy you can escape using your stealth and speed to heal up and come back in to do it again, almost like a giant, gun-based Paolo run on a much slower scale. Interestingly, the 25 second reload, though largely a DPM detriment, helps with this - because its longer than the 20 second gun bloom effect, which means that after each salvo you have time to figure out if you can stay in the fight because you'll go dark after every shot. You can even use that that like UK battlehips do to frustrate enemy battleships and cruisers trying to lob long shells at you. .... hmmm, i probably should have included that concept in the video.....
Thanks Hanks, appreciate the comment!
Thanks for the feedback. I am hopeful Clyde will use his new CC powers for doing reviews on new things this way and continue to do these kind of comparisons.
Nice review, I am a crazy tester person in training rooms, and I have too say when built fully for AA petro wins easily in shooting down the most planes.
Very interesting comparison, and I like all of these ships :-) For the Moskva, I wasn't sure if you were taking into account it's unique upgrade? That really impacts it.
That's a good point, i didn't include her unique upgrade, although i do run it on my ship. Getting into specific builds makes these kinds of comparison videos very complicated, unless you just assume everyone uses your same build.
One thing that wasn't talked about was penetration. You'd think having the bigger guns would make Sevastopol the winner here but that's only the case at distances above 14km. Somehow at shorter distances Stalins 305's and even Petros 220's can punch deeper into metal.
Another gun aspect that wasn't touched on is gun handling. While it's Moskva that has the fastest turning turrets (all are really slow for cruisers tbh), the utility of having full 360° mounts on Petro just makes it feel the most comfortable at keeping all guns on target.
These are good points. WOWS has SO MANY attributes that the game has a lot of real depth, thanks for sharing.
@@ClydePlays Another gun stat that I just remembered exist is the improved pen angles that Stalin, Petro and Sev gets but Moskva doesn't. (Moskva really trading a lot for her higher DPM compared to the others here)
Great review Clyde, I would like to get the Sevastopol, just not there yet. I don't reset lines so it take me a long time to get the research points for a ship, I do have enough for this ship. Are any of the other cruisers worth getting?
For RPs, I only have Sev and Hector. Both very different ships, but both are fun. Between those two, MOST players would probably prefer Sev as Hector is just so specialized for light cruiser fans.
I think my next ship will be Colbert - (I like light cruisers) and then it'll be a toss up between Siggy and Gibraltar.... Though both have their purposes.... If you want 380s without the gimmick of the crazy heal.... Siegfried could be a solid choice for you.
Good luck whatever you choose!
For the Sevastopol, I have been very happy with getting it from the research bureau. It has the speed and concealment to do a lot on a flank and pop up in unexpected places. And when it gets there, the guns and alpha to really punish. Thinking about that for your comparison, have you thought about a category like that? What is the alpha strike capability? You cover most of it individually, but I see it as a combination of how close you can get, total AP damage, ability to hit the target / accuracy / sigma, and penetration for the citadel broadside armour of a ship - not so much then about overmatch. I don't know if Sevastopol would win that, but I have certainly been enjoying that the most about the ship 🙂
And for the Sevastopol, after delivering that big alpha strike, I can reliably get away - using the speed, concealment and heal. But the enemy ship will typically run to the back line (or die from my follow up shots if it stays parked), which can cause significant disruption to the enemies line of battle. This means the Sevastopol can be very interesting for making the battle flow in the way you want. Add the healing, so the Sevastopol is almost always there to the end of the game, and I think there is some potential for at least clan battles - I am already really enjoying it in ranked.
This was good, thank you!
you a have an awesome voice for informational voiceovers.
Dude, thank you!
NGL, would love a breakdown like this for other ships. USN BBs for one. Would be interesting to watch.
Makes me feel better about my Moskva Coal purchase. Been so busy trying to do other things I haven't had time to take her out
All four of these ships are pretty good at something. I think Moskva is perhaps the most versatile and personally, I love the guns/reload coupled with the 30s radar. You made a good choice in picking it up.
First youtuber that makes an objective review of Sevastopol. For me if you want RB ships the pick would be Ohio, Slava, and Sevastopol if there is no other better ship. 6 guns ships have small impact for the team, you have to wait for that perfect broadside all game and end up with under 100k dmg and a defeat. In the current meta when people tend to play far from caps, Sevastopol is kinda useless, cant support the DDs with radar, cant tank like Stalin or Petro, not a really good investment for your RB points. Great and honest video.
Thanks Web, I appreciate your comment!
In the near future I think Clyde is going to do a rundown of all Research Bureau ships on Twitch and it should make it's way to UA-cam.
Thx very nice video for stalin vs sevas
Thanks!
@@ClydePlays you're welcome
Really interesting analysis. I personally prefer Moskva; the faster reload and dpm feels better when trading gunfire, she also accelerates and turns better, so can jink forwards and backwards better, and also means she can kind of kite, plus the fire duration, good armour and radar/gun reload ratio just make her a better all round choice; she can do more than just anchor a corner and refuse to die. I don't dislike Stalingrad or Petro, Moksva is just a better fit for me as a player.
Moskva is very solid. None of these ships is a "bad" ship - but I think they speak to different players/styles. I am not the strongest player in any of these four, tbh, but have enjoyed many battles in Moskva and Stalingrad over the years. I just need to be more consistent in them. I always try to pull some wacky DD maneuver and predictably, it never works out, heh.
Nice video, love my Moskwa.
One question though, did you not mention alpha damage for the guns on purpose when comaring them or was that sort of covered with the calibre?
It's true, I didn't include damage for guns - I went back and forth on that, because I didn't want to award points for DPM, HE Max Damage, AP Max Damage etc....which would have skewed damage value higher. I probably should have still mentioned it tho!
For your information:
Petro Max Damages: AP=6,350, HE=3,050
Moskva Max Damages: AP=5,800, HE=3,100
Stalingrad Max Damages: AP=9,200, HE=4,500
Sevastopol Max Damages: AP=11,300, HE=5,350
@@ClydePlays thanks! Another question :), did u mention speed? I think u jumped straight into the engine boost
Anyway, for me the Moskwa is the jack of all trades. With the radar fully upgraded to 39 seconds I surprise enemies and team mates alike
@@riquelmeone I intended to mention it if I didn't! There was a point awarded for speed, it went to Stalingrad. You can see the full comparison here: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZIykK7L1hkxYywiNYOIrqjRlXOQJFpFVTSbxln8h-OQ/edit?usp=drivesdk
Enjoy your videos. Could you let us know what headset you use because it has great sound?
Hey Fiesty, I actually use a Shure SM58 microphone on my desk to capture the audio for my videos. Technically, there are better video/podcasting mics, but I had this one laying around from my garage band days, and its a great little microphone. Here's an (affiliate) link: amzn.to/3JByswl Thanks for the feedback on the audio quality!
Stalingrads better AA numbers is kneecapped by the distribution of the damage. Petro has 176 dps on the 6.6km long range AA and 224 dps on the 4km medium range AA and no short range AA. While Stalingrad has 173 dps on 6.6km long range, 183 dps on 3.5km medium range AA and 143 dps on 3.1km short range AA.
This means that Petros AA does all of it's damage out to a range of 4km, while Stalingrad does it's full damage only out to 3.1km. If one chooses to run DFAA on the ships, the DPS boost on Petro is also 150% and if I recall it's only 125% on Stalingrad.
Another thing that was missed during the armor section is that you didn't talk about the hidden plates within the bow and stern of the cruisers (for the record, Sevastopol doesn't have any, but the others do). These hidden plates can and will affect how the ships interact with AP shells.
Yep. Stalingrad does well with its AA when its actively under attack by planes that have to come close, whereas Petro can affect those planes at a greater distance. You are also correct on the DFAA boost percentage. Stalingrad has a reduced effectiveness (125% vs the other ship's 150%) - in fact, its the ONLY cruiser equipped with DFAA in World of Warships with a 125% boost, that adjustment to her capability is unique to Stalingrad. All other ships have a 150% boost except San Diego, whcih has a 200% boost.
Thanks for your comment.
Seeing how both the Sev and the Siegfried are both RB cruisers with BB guns, I'm curious how they would stack up against each other?
Agree - that would be an interesting comparison. I don't have Siegfried, but suspect it could be an interesting competition - especially as both are RB ships - even though Siggy is a tier down.
The "improved pen angles" of Sevastapol save it from being a worse version of the Siegfried, tier for tier. The pen angles are the main story comparing the two, not the hull repair. Siegfried has huge problems penetrating much of anything that's angled. If Siegfried had the improved pen angles that Sevastopol does on its 380s I wouldn't regret that waste of 47k research points. Because of the pen problems, Siegfried is a bloated brown trout at tier 9. I admit that it got me through Bronze and Silver leagues this ranked season, but never again.
Big fan of doing this sort of review in this manner, and doing a comparison so that normies like me can get an idea of how a new ship that is a big investment plays compared to something else in my port. I hope now that you are a CC and can do new ship review content that you continue to do it this way and not just do a port walk through/captain build/and highlight reel style vid.
I think this is an excellent summary, Clyde. Sevastopol doesn't seem as strong as the other 3 Russian heavies and I'd put it behind Ohio in the RB.
Fun fact: Sevastopol was a real life battleship of the Gangut class built by the Russian Empire.
Sev having the speed boost, hydro and long duration health.
Seems like she needs a specific playstyle
Mainly pushing, flanking while popping the heal as you are pushing and getting burned down.
Again you still need to be really aware of enemy position and choose the right time to push.
But this can be situational and can be hard if the enemy team got agood low conceal dd or have a cv that focus or constantly spot you.
Kind of like incomparable (fast squishy needs good flanking and positioning) gameplay or even Alaska, good guns but again low dpm, guns do punish broadsides. Cannot win against multiple ship firing at you though. Needs to hug island and focus 1 ship at a time. Again if cv exist you can be focused.
Sev can play like that too.
Agree with these points - I had several poor games in the ship as I was getting the hang of what she could and couldn't do. I think you're fairly spot on, but I will say a certain comfort with the "heal and rest" pattern of the ship is required because of the long heals and longer cooldowns.
Obviously, I don't have the the Sev, but I have the others. Stalin can be awesome, guns are AMAZING, but is SOO situational. I've had amazing games (for me), but also pretty poor whne HE spammed or left alone with a DD. I find that I keep playing Petro and Moskva, depending on what we're looking for. Moskva is the better all around and the Radar (which upgrade mod is amazing) and the legendary mod is also huge. But sometimes you're looking for a tanky, almost a BB. That's the Petro. It's the standard cruisers I'm going to run. Don't know if I'll spend the points for Sev or not.
Stalingrad is the king but Petropavlovsk is awesome it gives a similar type of experience and so I would think to get Incomparable because that thing is really super Repulse
Which fantasy ship did Wargaming decide to make good
I think they made them all pretty good, haha. Deets in the vid.
Stalin is still the one of the best for competitive, imo. She has actually lost a lot of her luster in randoms though. Sev is fun in randoms but not good for ranked or CBs. Moskva and Stalin are still the 2 best for competitive imo.
Stalingrad is way strong and has been for years - same with Moskva. I think you could get away with Sev in lower ranked, tiers but not up in Gold - although i think most would agree with you.
He forgott the horizontal and vertical dispersion and there is a huge difference between these ships. ... wrote it before here, but my comment vanished, no idea why, i didnd sayd anything wrong
Hey Andreas - I covered dispersion at 26:45 (both horizonal and vertical dispersion). I awarded a single point for a combined dispersion value (vertical x horizontal) - Moskva and Sevastopol took those points, with both ships tying for the best horizontal dispersion (116m) and vertical dispersion (61m). Petro also had 61m vertical dispersion but had worse horizontal dispersion (129m). Stalingrad has the worst dispersion in the group (149m / 77m).
With respect to your previous comment - I'm not sure what happened to it? I didn't moderate or remove any comments just about the ship's technical specifications.
@@ClydePlays sry .. then i missed that .. my fault
@@andreaspreusse2747 No worries!
Why not nevsky too
I just covered the heavies in this video, but I love Nevsky!
Thanks for the info. I was interested in Sev when it was first announced. But, since it will be for RB points it is "DEAD IN THE WATER" for me. IMO the RB is the worst resource WG has added to the game. It is not a benefit to the game and is only a drain on time and resources to the player base. Did the RB grind once for the Ohio and will not do it again. Already have the Petro, Moskva and Stalin so I will be happy to just continue playing them.
Those are three very solid ships - a very reasonable decision, given the cost in time/effort for Sev.
I would rather have RB instead of WG asking us to shell out more money. F2p players can ultimately get these ships since it is more time and xp gated instead of money gated.
never played Sevastopol, Moskva and petro are super boring, and for my Novosibirsk I actually mounted the range module because at 19 km stock range I get super focused immediately and was actually struggling simply to survive.
It's a bunch of cruisers that tend to be decent in clans and a bit underwhelming in randoms. Decent staying power in most of them, I haven't tried my Novo in randoms yet but I did employ it in clans this last season.
Sev is different from the rest in that she's stealthy and she likes to be mobile. She's not quite as tanky as the others in certain situations too. I've got another vid with lots of detail about Sev if you want to know more about her.
sev can be slapped by yammie , had 2 cits when shells landed around the turrets
Oooooohhhhhh yes. Sev can be slapped by many things....including another Sev. LOL.
Choosing a pixel ship by means of quantifying ship characteristics is an inherently flawed methodology for this purpose. Judging the power or capability of a ship is the question that has to be answered. You can, and do, illustrate how experience and impression drive the decision to acquire, and the numbers validate, but don't and shouldn't drive those decisions for most of us. While I appreciate the level of detail and the informed analysis, preferences and impressions don't lose their value in assisting with the decisions of choosing what's best, or best for me. Your work is good, Clyde, but the value of this analysis is limited compared to what your playing impressions would be.
You are very correct Dale. This was a very early video in my "figure out how to compare and contrast ships" process.
The thing I liked (and still like) about this early video is that it cuts through the rumors and hearsay which are so prevalent in WOWS circles today. That being said, you have correctly identified this method's greatest weakness.
Even now, with my newer Hot Take videos I'm continuing to try to find better and better ways to represent the ships, both factually and in terms of feel/impressions. One day, I'll make the perfect ship review. When I do, it'll be a balance of all of these goals.
Thanks for the feedback, and for watching.
@@ClydePlays Hangrid NA. Keep up the good work. See you in game.
Ship is absolutely not worth it, perhaps for goal, not RP. Everything is slow on this ship, it would drive me crazy.
I think there are MANY players who will agree with you. I'll be adding it to my port, but mostly because its an oddity. I suspect I won't play 100+ games in her tho.
You wrote "Mosvka" in the thumbnail image :)
Fixed, d'oh! Thanks!
Stalingrad is better in every way.
I believe Sev won't be used for competitive for one simple reason, it can't deal with DDs alone, the long reload and lack of radar and torps makes it almost imposible to fight against a Yolo DD
In comparison to the other Soviet cruisers with long rane radars and faster firing hard hitting HE guns
I agree, that is a weakness for the ship. Even with radar, the long reload on radar ships such as Alaska or Stalingrad makes dealing with DD difficult for those ships to deal with DDs alone, (though Alaska's relatively long radar run time helps). IMHO, coordinated DD work along with fire from ships/captains that know how to pen the armor of Sev will make her difficult to use in competitive, with Ranked the most likely game mode to feature Sevastopol. Thanks for your comment!