Petro vs Moskva?

[Spogger]

What's the difference between the two ships? Other than Moskva's larger citadel and freeboard, better accuracy and better HE at the cost of AP pen at range, with a longer duration radar, what is the difference between it and Petro? And why is Petro banned in CB if Moskva has better consumables and arguably better guns? People are always telling me it's because Petro is tankier but I don't understand how since both have CA burn time, Soviet icebreaker, and BB-level deck armor. Someone explain how Petro can survive longer than Moskva because I don't really understand.

[Admiral_Karasu]

@Spogger Welcome aboard!

[I_cant_Swim_]

Welcome to DevStrike @Spogger. The guns. If you take the Petro out, load AP, and hit many a BB broadside.... ooh yeah, that's one point that favors Petro.

[Admiral_Karasu]

19 minutes ago, I_cant_Swim_ said:

Welcome to DevStrike @Spogger. The guns. If you take the Petro out, load AP, and hit many a BB broadside.... ooh yeah, that's one point that favors Petro.

So it's the AP pen difference?

[Kruzenstern]

2 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

So it's the AP pen difference?

https://shiptool.st/params?m=L&s=RC110RC310&c=top&p=ap&rm=12

Actually quite the difference...

[Admiral_Karasu]

4 minutes ago, Kruzenstern said:

https://shiptool.st/params?m=L&s=RC110RC310&c=top&p=ap&rm=12

Actually quite the difference...

[I_cant_Swim_]

Quite! From the table @Kruzenstern prepared, for AP, Moskva above, Petro below: 

[torino2dc]

On 11/4/2024 at 5:58 AM, Spogger said:

And why is Petro banned in CB if Moskva has better consumables and arguably better guns?

Three different ways to answer this question:

1) The Petro is too good at its role.

Push flanks usually work on an anchor + pivot principle, with a sturdy ship holding down an island position above the cap and fast flankers creating a crossfire from the side. The Petro is simply the ideal anchor ship: it brings a lot of toughness, dangerous firepower, and decent utility. 

Toughness: Petro sits low in the water, has abundant armor, minimal superstructure, good hitpoint pool, and a 13.2km detect (vs. 14.2km on Moskva)

Firepower: Petro guns have improved AP ricochet angles (50-65° vs. 45-60°), shorter AP fuse (0.022s vs. 0.033s), high AP alpha (6350 vs. 5800 on Moskva) and battleship levels of AP penetration. 

Utility: An ~18s radar (with module) is still enough to keep a cap reset (in combination with other radars). Unlike Stalingrad, Petro has Hydro.

This combination alone already makes the Petro very difficult to deal with. The AP in particular makes it almost impossible for defending ships to hold against multiple lanes of incoming fire -- the improved ricochet angles and short fuse is brutal for cruisers. 

2) The Petro is too good at it pushing.

All of the above wouldn't be enough to get the Petro banned -- the pushing ability is what pushes it over the edge. Unlike Moskva and Stalingrad, which have very easy above-water citadels, the Petro can shrug off broadside salvos when it pushes. This makes it very proficient at island hopping and therefore closing down the map. A good Petro player is a nightmare because they can prop and rudder juke enough to make a lot of salvoes bounce, even when mostly broadside. And because the guns are so strong at medium to close range, they are doing devastating damage while they are gaining ground. 

3) Petro is too good en masse.

A Russian wall strat with Petros is too effective for the relatively low amount of skill it takes to run. We will likely see something similar this season with teams running triple Novosibirsk -- the overlapping 12km radar bubbles with huge hitpoint pools and powerful guns takes a good amount of coordination and skill to bring down. The solution, for most teams, is to hop on the bandwagon and run it themselves. We've already seen what the meta devolves into when we let Petros loose, and it is pretty dull for everyone involved.

[Frostbow]

10 hours ago, Spogger said:

People are always telling me it's because Petro is tankier but I don't understand how since both have CA burn time, Soviet icebreaker, and BB-level deck armor. Someone explain how Petro can survive longer than Moskva because I don't really understand.

I also do not fully understand how my Petropavlovsk can survive longer than Moskva. I have both ships, with their corresponding Unique Upgrades, but it is with the Petropavlovsk that I survived 4,070,000 potential damage in one game trying to stall the enemy's push while waiting for the rest of my team to help turn the tide. Maybe because Petro has 360° turrets with way better AP than Moskva on top of a lower citadel? 

[Admiral_Karasu]

44 minutes ago, Frostbow said:

I also do not fully understand how my Petropavlovsk can survive longer than Moskva. I have both ships, with their corresponding Unique Upgrades, but it is with the Petropavlovsk that I survived 4,070,000 potential damage in one game trying to stall the enemy's push while waiting for the rest of my team to help turn the tide. Maybe because Petro has 360° turrets with way better AP than Moskva on top of a lower citadel? 

Or maybe you just get shot at more?

May the aim bug be with you!

[Frostbow]

13 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Or maybe you just get shot at more?

May the aim bug be with you!

I tried speed throttling too. It helped. LOL!

 

[Unlooky]

3 hours ago, Frostbow said:

I also do not fully understand how my Petropavlovsk can survive longer than Moskva. I have both ships, with their corresponding Unique Upgrades, but it is with the Petropavlovsk that I survived 4,070,000 potential damage in one game trying to stall the enemy's push while waiting for the rest of my team to help turn the tide. Maybe because Petro has 360° turrets with way better AP than Moskva on top of a lower citadel? 

Petro presents a much smaller target profile than Moskva, and has a much smaller superstucture that is less likely to eat BB full pens. 

[xamdam]

In my last venture into randoms I kitted out both Moskva and Petro as per advice from this board. Both were good. Petro though, was kind of hilarious at times. I had a lock on a central position with islands protecting my low sideboards and got pushed by a few BBs. The one that stuck out was a newly released (at the time) Rhode Island that tried to out tank me... It wasn't to be as I was able to permanently destroy both of his forward turrets... 8 of his 12 guns... He spent the remainder of the battle sailing around in reverse being the last ship of his side alive...

I was giggling about that for days. 😄

My Moskva experience tells me that I have giant "shoot here" neon lights painted along my entire sides. Petro, when I got it sat so low it didn't seem a problem but they raised it.

Both ships are good IMO, but need to be played slightly differently. I do think Petro was OP at release.

[Frostbow]

7 hours ago, xamdam said:

The one that stuck out was a newly released (at the time) Rhode Island that tried to out tank me... It wasn't to be as I was able to permanently destroy both of his forward turrets... 8 of his 12 guns... He spent the remainder of the battle sailing around in reverse being the last ship of his side alive...

LOL! A very expensive premium battleship outclassed by a Tier X tech tree cruiser! 🤣