Jump to content


SO a how about a hard core naval sim version of WOWS...


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

Belthorian #21 Posted 25 June 2016 - 09:26 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 293
  • Member since:
    03-22-2015

View PostSubmarine_Wahoo, on 22 June 2016 - 10:45 PM, said:

 

They never modernized the FCS because it was already a reliable system. However, hitting a stationary dime 2 miles away isn't the same thing as hitting a maneuvering ship 20 miles (32.1 km) away. I'm sure the Iowa is fully capable of hitting targets at that range, but not with the reliability that people boast about/exaggerate.

 

With the Mk-8 Range Keeper you could input information like targets range, course, speed, wind speed, barometric pressure, temperature, temperature of the powder, sea state, your course, speed, it even corrected for the rotation of the earth. Once a firing solution was achieved it was continuously updated in real time. It made no difference if your target was maneuvering the computer would plot where the target WOULD BE when the shells landed. It didn't matter how much you maneuvered as well. Once the firing solution was set and maintained any US battleship equipped with it could bring very accurate fire no matter what the conditions are. The USS West Virginia demonstrated that capability at the battle of the Suriago Strait where she achieved a firing solution at 30k yards but waited to fire at 23. She scored a direct hit on her first salvo and continued to land accurate fire at a range where the Japanese could not return fire. It was like clubbing baby seals.

ArcherDude #22 Posted 26 June 2016 - 11:34 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 327
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postfor_SCIENCE, on 22 June 2016 - 06:34 PM, said:

You, I and a few other rivet-counters would appreciate it, but I imagine modifying WoWS to make a sim would still require a significant investment of time and money to refine the current engine and physics to a realistic level.

Simulators are a niche market, and naval combat even more so. There's a reason that the most recent naval combat sims are the likes of Steam and Iron- there's not enough of a market to support the development costs that 3D AAA graphics and physics modeling require. WoWS does as well as it does because it is more arcade like, which means it is accessible and easy to get into for casual players, which is 95%+ of the playerbase. It's absurd to expect WG to do all this work for free for a tiny fraction of us.

 

The simple solution to that is start the timeline at 1880 or so and go to the end of WW1....no need for AAA, or Aircraft...yes there were sea-planes and zeppelins, but they were rarely seen at sea

But your right, prob not enough of a player base to warrant the time or money



Whipple #23 Posted 29 June 2016 - 01:06 AM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 37
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostBelthorian, on 25 June 2016 - 09:26 PM, said:

 

With the Mk-8 Range Keeper you could input information like targets range, course, speed, wind speed, barometric pressure, temperature, temperature of the powder, sea state, your course, speed, it even corrected for the rotation of the earth. Once a firing solution was achieved it was continuously updated in real time. It made no difference if your target was maneuvering the computer would plot where the target WOULD BE when the shells landed. It didn't matter how much you maneuvered as well. Once the firing solution was set and maintained any US battleship equipped with it could bring very accurate fire no matter what the conditions are. The USS West Virginia demonstrated that capability at the battle of the Suriago Strait where she achieved a firing solution at 30k yards but waited to fire at 23. She scored a direct hit on her first salvo and continued to land accurate fire at a range where the Japanese could not return fire. It was like clubbing baby seals.

 

Shipmate, you are NOT allowed to use logic and RL experience in these threads.  I think it's in WG's TOS somewhere.  :)

 

HAVFND!

Whip

 

 



MrSparkle #24 Posted 11 July 2016 - 07:03 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 206
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostSuper_Dreadnought, on 22 June 2016 - 07:20 PM, said:

"Ehmagerd! Muh Yamato is being attacked by 300+airplanes at the same time! Nerf CVs moar! Nerf realism!"

 

"Wargaming wth! 95% of the time I get ocean map! Please gimme more islands to hidez ma cruiser"

 

"Buff DDs! They no funsies since I can launch torps only once per match!"

 

 

meanwhile CV players go make a cup of tea while their airstrike is flying hundreds of kilometers to their destination

 

 

 

I'd still play it. It will be a small percentage of the playerbase that played it but I'd most likely be one of them. I played the hell out of (that other tank and plane game's) tank simulator mode and while it wasn't true "simulator" it was still tons more fun than 3rd person arcade style, and the maps were sometimes really large and with no map markers so plenty of room to maneuver and flank.

 

View PostBelthorian, on 25 June 2016 - 09:26 PM, said:

 

With the Mk-8 Range Keeper you could input information like targets range, course, speed, wind speed, barometric pressure, temperature, temperature of the powder, sea state, your course, speed, it even corrected for the rotation of the earth. Once a firing solution was achieved it was continuously updated in real time. It made no difference if your target was maneuvering the computer would plot where the target WOULD BE when the shells landed. It didn't matter how much you maneuvered as well. Once the firing solution was set and maintained any US battleship equipped with it could bring very accurate fire no matter what the conditions are. The USS West Virginia demonstrated that capability at the battle of the Suriago Strait where she achieved a firing solution at 30k yards but waited to fire at 23. She scored a direct hit on her first salvo and continued to land accurate fire at a range where the Japanese could not return fire. It was like clubbing baby seals.

 

Imagine the cries of the weeaboos and wehraboos if Iowas had accurately modeled fire control. It would be glorious.


Except that those Iowas would be firing on their US predecessors like North Carolinas. I'm not a fan of mixed teams.

 

You know, I might like to try at least a US vs Japan mode at the very least. Very little about either nation's ships is modeled correctly in game but it would be interesting to see.


Edited by MrSparkle, 11 July 2016 - 07:04 PM.


HollywoodMM #25 Posted 18 July 2016 - 07:23 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 181
  • Member since:
    10-30-2015

View Postrustydawg, on 24 June 2016 - 07:14 PM, said:

IL-2 Sturmovik has COOP games where 6 or so players can man a single bomber, Pilot, co pilot bombardier, gunners..etc.

 

I wonder how this game would work if a few hundred players manned each station on a ship like captain, helmsman, gunners, damage control...etc. And on carriers all the guns and damage control manned plus individual pilots for the planes, plus gunners if needed.

 

Discipline would have to be the order of the day

 

Just a thought,

 

rustydawg

 

 

Yeah - imagine your Capt steams you right into a pile of torps at the game start.  The [edited]/whining he would have to endure would be EPIC (do people still use this as a term?!)!!



dionkraft #26 Posted 22 July 2016 - 09:04 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,104
  • Member since:
    08-03-2013

I can see a more realistic WOW using very little to program it.  Most if not all its delete features:

 

No ID tags on any ships on the 3d screen.

You would have to look at the mini or tactical to see WHO it is  

color flags on the ship's mast:  green or red on the 3d screen only

You must ONLY look in FPS mode only from the bridge or deck height:  NO third person view.

Highest observation is the height of the ships observation officer or if you have a plane - its view

Torpedoes do not go straight - they have to randomly veer as do shots from shells do. Even some duds will be random as well

True loads out numbers of torpedos - not unlimited. Unlimited gun ammo tho. 

Guns should shoot above the horizon anywhere you please up to a point. No straight vertical shots!  45 deg max?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by dionkraft, 23 July 2016 - 07:04 PM.


Umikami #27 Posted 25 July 2016 - 02:12 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,569
  • Member since:
    05-14-2013

View PostDerekSlide, on 22 June 2016 - 06:15 PM, said:

 

I was just thinking that. People would have so much fun with a ~5% hit rate.

 

And, add to that, 1 reload only of torps (historic) which takes half the match. Just call the Whaaaaambulance right now!! LOL!

HazeGrayUnderway #28 Posted 25 July 2016 - 07:42 AM

    Rear Admiral

  • Members

  • 6,984
  • Member since:
    03-13-2015

If you value having a "WoWS-like" game and being able to play and have fun with different ship types, i.e. Cruisers, Destroyers, Battleships, Carriers, you do not want a realistic game.  Because Battleships would dominate surface engagements.

 

1.  Their main battery will wreck Cruisers, Destroyers.

 

2.  Their secondary battery are the main armaments for Cruisers, Destroyers.  A ship like an Iowa-class has something like an Atlanta's worth of dual gun 127mm turrets to each side.  An 8" gun < Battleship caliber guns.  The intent of the secondary battery on the Battleships is specifically for easier, cheaper engagement of smaller vessels.  You don't necessarily have to fire that 14"/15"/16"/18" battery to deal with some scrawny little ship.  In WoWS, Battleship secondaries are heavily, heavily nerfed.  They're all short ranged, firing maybe half the range they possibly would from the same guns mounted on a Cruiser or Destroyer.

 

Picture this:  What if secondary guns on a Battleship like Yamato, Iowa, N.C. had the full range as they would on a smaller vessel?  What if those dual gun 127mm turrets on NC & Iowa had the same ROF and range as they do on Atlanta?  On top of their powerful main battery?  What if Yamato's secondaries, to include it's freakin' 155mm guns, could reach to their full extent?  Imagine Yamato's 155mm guns performing as if they did on Mogami.

 

Not to mention the radar capable, radar gunfire control system capable BBs will have a field day.

 

THEN, when you think that Battleships are just owning everything out on the seas, except possibly against another Battleship... Here come the Aircraft Carrier airstrikes.  CVs in WoWS don't sortie their full air wings, only parts of it.  So imagine a Fleet Carrier / CV launching its full air wing for a massive strike, and not just a handful of aircraft each time.  Then imagine what a massed airstrike from 2, 3, 4 or so CVs will look like.



TL_Warlord_Roff #29 Posted 26 July 2016 - 02:57 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 540
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

Yea... no carriers... aircraft would be just to doggone powerfull.   The thing is the rule of thumb in WOW is any ship within teir is just as capable as any other ship.   I get this big time.. I consider it hard to miss that point.  when and DD can shell a battleship to death...yea.. not at all realistic.. not even close.   We don't even have bad topedo's.  they always work properly and if they het a ship they always go off which is so unbelivibly unrealistic..  Torpedo's that strike at anything much more then a 60 degree angle to the target tend to simply break up and not detonate.  ANd then lets not forget spotting incoming torps..  One of things that made the IJN long lance so deadly is it was an oxygen fueled torp,  No tell tale trail of bubbles in the water.

 

More often then not they simply did not get spotted.  That's what sunk the Indianapolis.. she had spotters on deck.. and no one saw the torps!  Or if they did see them it was far to late to do anything about it.  

 

One of the better table top naval games I ever played was a mini game" that only covered Destroyer and Cruiser actions in the south pacific in WW-II.  It was produced I think by dwarfstar games and was pretty detailed..going into shell pen, what comparments get effected.. flooding etc..

The don't model flooding caused by shell fine in WOWS  (which I think should be modeled!)... hey.. a 14" shell, even if it over pens is still going to leave a 14" hole going in, and a 14" going out...and the exit hole has a better then even chance of being below the water line.. as the ships structure absorbes the energy of the shell, the shell will slow down, and there for drop more.    

 

The effects of below the water line damage and torpedo hits are not as well modeled in warships as I i'd like to see..  The amount of flooding damage in real life depends a great deal on where the torpedo hits.  In the bow.. not a lot of flooding damage.. but it slows a ship down as the bow drops deeper in the water with even flooding that is rapidly contained.. the more hull in the water the greater the drag that the engines must overcome.

 

 Reducing speed after a torp hit is a fairly standard practice of most navies as have a hole in the ship or even buckled hull plates puts more stress on the hull.  the faster you go, the more stress.. and the greater the danger that a small easly delt with hole, becoming a much larger and less easily managed bit of damage.  

 

I do greatly enjoy what we have.. but a hard core mode/version of the game would not be difficult to do starting with what WG all ready has.

 

 


Set your course / the thunder of the guns beckon you onward / A hell of shell shot and fire await / Sailors to their duties attend / deep in their wombs of steel.

 

Stat Link removed... I like to surprise people...

 


Herr_Reitz #30 Posted 26 July 2016 - 03:13 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

  • 5,742
  • Member since:
    08-18-2014
Agree it "would not be difficult" but they must ask "would it be profitable?" Then, "If so, how?" Only they know the numbers needed... but doing as all of you ask... how would it aid in making money? Would the "hard core mode" people be willing to pay a subscription fee? A per match fee? A membership fee? What?! 

rustydawg #31 Posted 30 July 2016 - 07:09 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 307
  • Member since:
    04-04-2016

View PostHollywoodMM, on 18 July 2016 - 11:23 AM, said:

 

 

Yeah - imagine your Capt steams you right into a pile of torps at the game start.  The [edited]/whining he would have to endure would be EPIC (do people still use this as a term?!)!!

 

He'll probably be keel hulled.

Sampsonite #32 Posted 12 August 2016 - 02:19 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Alpha Tester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 1,795
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostBelthorian, on 25 June 2016 - 04:26 PM, said:

 

With the Mk-8 Range Keeper you could input information like targets range, course, speed, wind speed, barometric pressure, temperature, temperature of the powder, sea state, your course, speed, it even corrected for the rotation of the earth. Once a firing solution was achieved it was continuously updated in real time. It made no difference if your target was maneuvering the computer would plot where the target WOULD BE when the shells landed. It didn't matter how much you maneuvered as well. Once the firing solution was set and maintained any US battleship equipped with it could bring very accurate fire no matter what the conditions are. The USS West Virginia demonstrated that capability at the battle of the Suriago Strait where she achieved a firing solution at 30k yards but waited to fire at 23. She scored a direct hit on her first salvo and continued to land accurate fire at a range where the Japanese could not return fire. It was like clubbing baby seals.

   Having toured the Iowa in the same time frame he was on board (I probably met you lol) Belthorian's info is exactly the info given to me by a GM that gave us the tour. The Fire control on board was perfect. The only added thing was Velocimeters on the barrels to make it even more accurate. I have heard it called "Mechanical Perfection" lol.


         
                                              "Out gun anything you can't outrun and outrun anything you can't outgun..."

 


Malamute_Kid #33 Posted 28 August 2016 - 08:38 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 256
  • Member since:
    08-07-2016

It's funny to me because all of the arguements against having a realistic naval wargame are the very reasons I would want to play one. Yes, limited torps, yes historical main and secondary gun  and torpedo accuracy, range, power and reload time.  Realistic damage control, speed, manuvering...ALL OF IT!  Count me in.

 


"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."

Hunter S. Thompson

 


Umikami #34 Posted 28 August 2016 - 02:15 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,569
  • Member since:
    05-14-2013

View PostSuper_Dreadnought, on 22 June 2016 - 07:20 PM, said:

"Buff DDs! They no funsies since I can launch torps only once per match!"

 

Twice, they came with one reload. Of course, it takes over an hour to accomplish, so...

flyingtaco #35 Posted 18 May 2017 - 12:34 PM

    Ensign

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,016
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
The thing with mk 8 and really any other linear rate ballistic computer is that they create a more or less perfect prediction of where to target will be if it keeps doing the same thing until the shells land. The computer cannot impart information about a course or speed change into the shell after it is fired. The ngfs issue is really completely seperate from an at sea fight so far as fire control is concerned. The iowas had a mk 48 shore bombardment computer that interfaced with a director and the mk 8.they could establish a point of reference  optically or with radar on the mk 37 directors but the Mk 13 on the spot one and two really were only useful against ships.. the radars were different frequencies etc and for lack of a better term .. this limited the definition that the mk 13 could display, while the mk 25s on sky directors could more easily pick out geographic features. One they had a position fix the they could over way a map on the mk 48 and use a dead reckoning trace to keep track of where they were relative to targets ashore.  

Vaporisor #36 Posted 18 May 2017 - 03:34 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 864
  • Member since:
    01-09-2013

View PostDerekSlide, on 22 June 2016 - 06:15 PM, said:

 

I was just thinking that. People would have so much fun with a ~5% hit rate.

 

And 40km of range.

 

Funny part is, that wouldnt actually make a good game, which assumes a fair fight...  

 

But in terms of hardcore simulation, I wouldnt be against them taking out range scaling and how detection, lock and aim works.  Add an additional level to combat for stuff like flooding and engine damage.

 

If there is one golden dream I have for this game, it is changing ship death.  I would actually remove the concept of HP all together.  The Bad Advice about repairing sums it up perfectly.  Damage Control and flooding is gone.  What I would have is continued damage is incapacitations as is, but more effect on performance.  So hits above waterline, fire and such reduce performance.  Torps and below waterline shots cause flooding.  Slowing ships down and making it unstable.  Fall back and ship pumps water out.  Closing off a flooding area means no longer can repair those systems.  Ship does not explode then at zero HP.  Takes on enough water to sink or capsize.  Play foolish and end up dead in water.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users