World of Warships feel real ships not worth the effort

[BaronIveagh]

In a Q&A, when asked why World of Warships included so many paper project ships when there were plenty of real world ships to pick from, 'Teit', one of the WoWS devs, had this to say: (note the 'Satsuma' was suggested as a replacement for 'Proto Kongo' in the Japanese tech tree, but is far from being alone)

"If Satsuma - t3 , we need to revise american BB branch (remind - Michigan has t2), or american BBs will be imbalanced.

And if we modify american BB branch, we will need to modify DDs braches. And so on...

I think, it's not very good idea."

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/4057-developer-questions-and-answers-4/


Personally, I find the idea that real world warships not being worth the effort in a game called World of Warships is a bit absurd. I can understand paper projects being in the game, their inclusion at higher tiers is practically mandatory for some nations tech trees.

However, the US and Japan, the two nations who will be included at launch, have dozens of ship classes to pick from in the time period covered.

 

[BaronIveagh]

ps navy field 2 is coming too...

I was under the impression that game was cancelled.

 

[Albino Boo]

The problem is for the World of games is that they have to play balance the vehicles within reasonable margins. Altering one line would need buffing or debuffing of the same tier in the other lines. WoS isn't alone in that, WoT is pretty much the same. The British TD line for instance doesn't have the two most common TDs, the Archer and the Achilles but has a load of paper projects instead. The Archer was a valentine tank chassis with a 17lb gun mounted on it and the Achilles was version of the US M10 wolverine with a 17lb gun mounted in the turret.

ps navy field 2 is coming too...

I was under the impression that game was cancelled.

Its out in Europe but not the states. Its one of those licensing deals things.

 

[BaronIveagh]

Its out in Europe but not the states. Its one of those licensing deals things.

Yeah, it was out in Japan and the suddenly shut down in July. AFAIK they all have been shut down.


It just really pisses me off that they can't be bothered. It's like when they were putting the PLAAF symbols on a Nationalist Chinese plane in WoWP. Could they be more insulting?

While I understand the issue with balance, the fact is that they've absolutely screwed over players and tossed balance out the window on occasion when 'Historical' suits them. Particularly involving Russian tanks.

 

[dyre]

the problem with World of Warships from wargamings "World of" series design pov is that unlike tanks and even to an extent planes warships have in general far lesser incremental upgrades they can draw direct historical inspiration from.

whereas "designers" (of things like ships, planes, tanks etc)...like most designers of things i suspect...probably..."doodle"...a lot...

besides you kind of have to remember that for all the discussions about actual physical historical hardware etc, etc around the wargaming games it is still pretty much an "arcade" FPS type of game and not an actual historical wargaming simulation or something.

irl a tiger did not have four guns with the top one doing "350 damage"...it set you on fire and dispersed your previously coherent bits over a wide area or indeed the inside of another tank...but it didn't do "350 damage"...barring penetration and armor which is balanced by tier placement...."it's all just a construct"...just with naming and a few nods here and there for "flavour"...and maybe they are right and their various "frankensteins" are needed to turn out a better game...but that said they should probably still a least look at appeals for "reskinning" if you catch my drift...maybe they will in the long run...they have done similar things in WoT and the games are not low iteration rates...tbh i suspect atm they are probably more focused on getting the thing moving along and out the door...

i'm not too bothered about it because as well as playing WoT i'm a big fan of a game called "Warship Gunner" which let you basically design ships yourself to use in gameplay....that and tbh i'd probably sell least a part of my gaming soul for a "frankenstein" "best of" Sherman in WoT

ps navy field 2 is coming too...

Hmm, I'm no expert on warships, but I do know there are many subclasses of warships that people don't often realize. For example, most people know "destroyer, battleship, submarine," etc, but these have lots of subclasses. For Britain alone, during World War II there was the Queen Elizabeth class, a Revenge class, a King George V class and a Vanguard class of battleships. Similarly, carriers, light cruisers, heavy cruisers, destroyers, submarines, etc each had their own subclasses, as I imagine the engineers of the day tried to balance armor, tonnage, speed, mobility, etc. And that's just Britain alone, during one war!

 

[beastro]

the problem with World of Warships from wargamings "World of" series design pov is that unlike tanks and even to an extent planes warships have in general far lesser incremental upgrades they can draw direct historical inspiration from.

whereas "designers" (of things like ships, planes, tanks etc)...like most designers of things i suspect...probably..."doodle"...a lot...

besides you kind of have to remember that for all the discussions about actual physical historical hardware etc, etc around the wargaming games it is still pretty much an "arcade" FPS type of game and not an actual historical wargaming simulation or something.

irl a tiger did not have four guns with the top one doing "350 damage"...it set you on fire and dispersed your previously coherent bits over a wide area or indeed the inside of another tank...but it didn't do "350 damage"...barring penetration and armor which is balanced by tier placement...."it's all just a construct"...just with naming and a few nods here and there for "flavour"...and maybe they are right and their various "frankensteins" are needed to turn out a better game...but that said they should probably still a least look at appeals for "reskinning" if you catch my drift...maybe they will in the long run...they have done similar things in WoT and the games are not low iteration rates...tbh i suspect atm they are probably more focused on getting the thing moving along and out the door...

i'm not too bothered about it because as well as playing WoT i'm a big fan of a game called "Warship Gunner" which let you basically design ships yourself to use in gameplay....that and tbh i'd probably sell least a part of my gaming soul for a "frankenstein" "best of" Sherman in WoT

ps navy field 2 is coming too...

Hmm, I'm no expert on warships, but I do know there are many subclasses of warships that people don't often realize. For example, most people know "destroyer, battleship, submarine," etc, but these have lots of subclasses. For Britain alone, during World War II there was the Queen Elizabeth class, a Revenge class, a King George V class and a Vanguard class of battleships. Similarly, carriers, light cruisers, heavy cruisers, destroyers, submarines, etc each had their own subclasses, as I imagine the engineers of the day tried to balance armor, tonnage, speed, mobility, etc. And that's just Britain alone, during one war!

What you're describing are classes of ships, not sub-classes, which are slightly modified version of ship classes that aren't distinct enough to become a class of their own.

besides you kind of have to remember that for all the discussions about actual physical historical hardware etc, etc around the wargaming games it is still pretty much an "arcade" FPS type of game and not an actual historical wargaming simulation or something.

Games like this are silly toys to enjoy, not to take seriously. And even the aforementioned wargaming games aren't to be either.

 

[dyre]

the problem with World of Warships from wargamings "World of" series design pov is that unlike tanks and even to an extent planes warships have in general far lesser incremental upgrades they can draw direct historical inspiration from.

whereas "designers" (of things like ships, planes, tanks etc)...like most designers of things i suspect...probably..."doodle"...a lot...

besides you kind of have to remember that for all the discussions about actual physical historical hardware etc, etc around the wargaming games it is still pretty much an "arcade" FPS type of game and not an actual historical wargaming simulation or something.

irl a tiger did not have four guns with the top one doing "350 damage"...it set you on fire and dispersed your previously coherent bits over a wide area or indeed the inside of another tank...but it didn't do "350 damage"...barring penetration and armor which is balanced by tier placement...."it's all just a construct"...just with naming and a few nods here and there for "flavour"...and maybe they are right and their various "frankensteins" are needed to turn out a better game...but that said they should probably still a least look at appeals for "reskinning" if you catch my drift...maybe they will in the long run...they have done similar things in WoT and the games are not low iteration rates...tbh i suspect atm they are probably more focused on getting the thing moving along and out the door...

i'm not too bothered about it because as well as playing WoT i'm a big fan of a game called "Warship Gunner" which let you basically design ships yourself to use in gameplay....that and tbh i'd probably sell least a part of my gaming soul for a "frankenstein" "best of" Sherman in WoT

ps navy field 2 is coming too...

Hmm, I'm no expert on warships, but I do know there are many subclasses of warships that people don't often realize. For example, most people know "destroyer, battleship, submarine," etc, but these have lots of subclasses. For Britain alone, during World War II there was the Queen Elizabeth class, a Revenge class, a King George V class and a Vanguard class of battleships. Similarly, carriers, light cruisers, heavy cruisers, destroyers, submarines, etc each had their own subclasses, as I imagine the engineers of the day tried to balance armor, tonnage, speed, mobility, etc. And that's just Britain alone, during one war!

What you're describing are classes of ships, not sub-classes, which are slightly modified version of ship classes that aren't distinct enough to become a class of their own.

I used subclass as a way to keep things less confusing, as most people would consider a "class" of ship to be a battleship, cruiser, etc, so "subclass" would convey that I'm describing classes of battleship. But yes, the King George V is technically a class, not a subclass. Not that it really affects my point :\

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well the game barely got started, tanks in WoT also mostly come from prototypes(some that weren't even built) and were redone several times over from their first outing.
They might still redo the whole thing, just have no intention of doing it right now when first priority is making stuff work.

People who claim these games are simulations have it dead wrong, Wargaming might be making stuff within the area of realism but ultimately they make it into a gaming system where stuff that was OP for it's time will for balance purposes be going against machines that came decades later or never came at all.

 

[beastro]

I used subclass as a way to keep things less confusing, as most people would consider a "class" of ship to be a battleship, cruiser, etc, so "subclass" would convey that I'm describing classes of battleship. But yes, the King George V is technically a class, not a subclass. Not that it really affects my point :\

Less confusing in your mind, as you said, you don't really know much about warships, but it is to those who know the proper terminology and is something you should dump.

What you're describing are types of ship. The KGVs aren't technically a class, they are one, in fact there are two classes of KGV battleships thanks to George the VI breaking tradition and refusing to have the latest class be named after him and preferred they be named after his father instead.

 

[dyre]

I used subclass as a way to keep things less confusing, as most people would consider a "class" of ship to be a battleship, cruiser, etc, so "subclass" would convey that I'm describing classes of battleship. But yes, the King George V is technically a class, not a subclass. Not that it really affects my point :\

Less confusing in your mind, as you said, you don't really know much about warships, but it is to those who know the proper terminology and is something you should dump.

What you're describing are types of ship. The KGVs aren't technically a class, they are one, in fact there are two classes of KGV battleships thanks to George the VI breaking tradition and refusing to have the latest class be named after him and preferred they be named after his father instead.

Geez, what are you, some kind of ship nazi >_>

But very well, if it pleases you, if I ever find myself in another situation in which I have to talk about classes/subclasses of warships, I'll be sure to use the right terminology...

 

[Albino Boo]

Yeah, it was out in Japan and the suddenly shut down in July. AFAIK they all have been shut down.


It just really pisses me off that they can't be bothered. It's like when they were putting the PLAAF symbols on a Nationalist Chinese plane in WoWP. Could they be more insulting?

While I understand the issue with balance, the fact is that they've absolutely screwed over players and tossed balance out the window on occasion when 'Historical' suits them. Particularly involving Russian tanks.

Company run by Russians favor Russian tanks in shock news. The Russian tanks were overpowered, not so bad now but still a little unbalanced. That said the KV-1s and IS line is boring to play, I have more fun playing the Hertzer with a derp gun.

Hmm, I'm no expert on warships, but I do know there are many subclasses of warships that people don't often realize. For example, most people know "destroyer, battleship, submarine," etc, but these have lots of subclasses. For Britain alone, during World War II there was the Queen Elizabeth class, a Revenge class, a King George V class and a Vanguard class of battleships. Similarly, carriers, light cruisers, heavy cruisers, destroyers, submarines, etc each had their own subclasses, as I imagine the engineers of the day tried to balance armor, tonnage, speed, mobility, etc. And that's just Britain alone, during one war!

I hate to break it to you, but you missed out the Nelson class and the Vanguard wasn't commissioned until 1946.

 

[dyre]

Hmm, I'm no expert on warships, but I do know there are many subclasses of warships that people don't often realize. For example, most people know "destroyer, battleship, submarine," etc, but these have lots of subclasses. For Britain alone, during World War II there was the Queen Elizabeth class, a Revenge class, a King George V class and a Vanguard class of battleships. Similarly, carriers, light cruisers, heavy cruisers, destroyers, submarines, etc each had their own subclasses, as I imagine the engineers of the day tried to balance armor, tonnage, speed, mobility, etc. And that's just Britain alone, during one war!

I hate to break it to you, but you missed out the Nelson class and the Vanguard wasn't commissioned until 1946.

You're the second person to nitpick that post. I'm not a ship expert, dammit, I was just trying to make a point T-T

 

[Albino Boo]

Hmm, I'm no expert on warships, but I do know there are many subclasses of warships that people don't often realize. For example, most people know "destroyer, battleship, submarine," etc, but these have lots of subclasses. For Britain alone, during World War II there was the Queen Elizabeth class, a Revenge class, a King George V class and a Vanguard class of battleships. Similarly, carriers, light cruisers, heavy cruisers, destroyers, submarines, etc each had their own subclasses, as I imagine the engineers of the day tried to balance armor, tonnage, speed, mobility, etc. And that's just Britain alone, during one war!

I hate to break it to you, but you missed out the Nelson class and the Vanguard wasn't commissioned until 1946.

You're the second person to nitpick that post. I'm not a ship expert, dammit, I was just trying to make a point T-T

Depends on your point of view old chap. I had lunch to today with the person who brought one of the current Vanguard class and I know the people who bought two of the others.

 

[srm79]

besides you kind of have to remember that for all the discussions about actual physical historical hardware etc, etc around the wargaming games it is still pretty much an "arcade" FPS type of game and not an actual historical wargaming simulation or something.

irl a tiger did not have four guns with the top one doing "350 damage"...it set you on fire and dispersed your previously coherent bits over a wide area or indeed the inside of another tank...but it didn't do "350 damage"

Correct. It had one main gun during its operational life - an 88mm monster that could kill pretty much any allied tank from beyond their own effective weapons range. It also had massive amounts of armour. Standard US doctrine for Sherman crews engaging Tigers was "don't". Unless you outnumbered it 4-1, and could get behind it to put a round up its arse from point blank range (less than 100m) then it was practically impossible to kill. Most of the ones the Germans lost were lost due to mechanical failure or simply running out of diesel and being abandoned by their crews. Aircraft got a few but not many at all were killed by allied armour. So for gameplay purposes, they have to balance them out. Similarly, early war Panzers were actually quite shit, but superior German doctrine helped to ensure the Panzer Divisions gained a fearsome reputation amongst allied armies. If WoT was historically accurate, most battles would be pretty one sided to be honest.

I used subclass as a way to keep things less confusing, as most people would consider a "class" of ship to be a battleship, cruiser, etc, so "subclass" would convey that I'm describing classes of battleship. But yes, the King George V is technically a class, not a subclass. Not that it really affects my point :\

Less confusing in your mind, as you said, you don't really know much about warships, but it is to those who know the proper terminology and is something you should dump.

What you're describing are types of ship. The KGVs aren't technically a class, they are one, in fact there are two classes of KGV battleships thanks to George the VI breaking tradition and refusing to have the latest class be named after him and preferred they be named after his father instead.

Er...not quite. It's the first capital ship built under a new Monarchs reign that is traditionally named after said Monarch. Whether or not it is the first in class doesn't matter. The third KGV, HMS Duke of York was named in honour of George VI.

 

[srm79]

I hate to break it to you, but you missed out the Nelson class and the Vanguard wasn't commissioned until 1946.

In fairness, the Nelson class is easy enough to overlook as there were only two of the things, and they were built way before WWII. Vanguard could be counted though as she was laid down in 1941, so she was mostly built during the war, even if the shooting had stopped before she entered service!

Depends on your point of view old chap. I had lunch to today with the person who brought one of the current Vanguard class and I know the people who bought two of the others.

Wait, what?

 

[dyre]

Hmm, I'm no expert on warships, but I do know there are many subclasses of warships that people don't often realize. For example, most people know "destroyer, battleship, submarine," etc, but these have lots of subclasses. For Britain alone, during World War II there was the Queen Elizabeth class, a Revenge class, a King George V class and a Vanguard class of battleships. Similarly, carriers, light cruisers, heavy cruisers, destroyers, submarines, etc each had their own subclasses, as I imagine the engineers of the day tried to balance armor, tonnage, speed, mobility, etc. And that's just Britain alone, during one war!

I hate to break it to you, but you missed out the Nelson class and the Vanguard wasn't commissioned until 1946.

You're the second person to nitpick that post. I'm not a ship expert, dammit, I was just trying to make a point T-T

Depends on your point of view old chap. I had lunch to today with the person who brought one of the current Vanguard class and I know the people who bought two of the others.

Uh, bought? As in, purchased with money? How much do they go for

 

[srm79]

Hmm, I'm no expert on warships, but I do know there are many subclasses of warships that people don't often realize. For example, most people know "destroyer, battleship, submarine," etc, but these have lots of subclasses. For Britain alone, during World War II there was the Queen Elizabeth class, a Revenge class, a King George V class and a Vanguard class of battleships. Similarly, carriers, light cruisers, heavy cruisers, destroyers, submarines, etc each had their own subclasses, as I imagine the engineers of the day tried to balance armor, tonnage, speed, mobility, etc. And that's just Britain alone, during one war!

I hate to break it to you, but you missed out the Nelson class and the Vanguard wasn't commissioned until 1946.

You're the second person to nitpick that post. I'm not a ship expert, dammit, I was just trying to make a point T-T

Depends on your point of view old chap. I had lunch to today with the person who brought one of the current Vanguard class and I know the people who bought two of the others.

Uh, bought? As in, purchased with money? How much do they go for

I'm going to go ahead and assume he's talking about something else. The current Vanguard class are still very much operational, being the UK's Nuclear Deterrent and whatnot. The previous HMS Vanguard was broken up for scrap in 1960 or so.

 

[Albino Boo]

I hate to break it to you, but you missed out the Nelson class and the Vanguard wasn't commissioned until 1946.

In fairness, the Nelson class is easy enough to overlook as there were only two of the things, and they were built way before WWII. Vanguard could be counted though as she was laid down in 1941, so she was mostly built during the war, even if the shooting had stopped before she entered service!

Depends on your point of view old chap. I had lunch to today with the person who brought one of the current Vanguard class and I know the people who bought two of the others.

Wait, what?

I'm going to go ahead and assume he's talking about something else. The current Vanguard class are still very much operational, being the UK's Nuclear Deterrent and whatnot. The previous HMS Vanguard was broken up for scrap in 1960 or so.

Yup its the current Vanguard class SSBN.

Uh, bought? As in, purchased with money? How much do they go for

Its was about £6 billion twenty odd years ago. By bought I mean the people that negotiated the contract.