Russian Paper: Yet Another Response

[Bjoring]

This is partially a response thread to this  response thread to this  original thread on Russian ships in WoWs, because what sort of person posts a response to a thread in the thread they're actually responding to? Noobs, that's who!

 

A big part of the appeal of World of Warships is taking warships from the (arguably) most impressive era of naval warfare and pitting them against each other in the deathmatches that history itself never gave us. The entire game is based on exciting "what if" scenarios; it's the naval history buff's version of imagining Superman vs. Son Goku*. Given this, I am A-Okay with the inclusion of ships that could have plausibly participated in such battles, but were never built or deployed due to economic or strategic factors. I am less supportive of ships that were never seriously intended to be built and used. The game is still based, however loosely, on the realities of early to mid 20th century naval warfare, so ships that weren't designed within the limitations of reality would likely be very out of place. For example, I like having the Montana in-game, because that is a ship that was, at one point, actually intended to be built and used. I would not like having the H-44 in-game, because that particular schlacht-wurst was a pipe dream from any perspective.

 

So how does this apply to Mother Russia's Finest? Well, as far as I can tell, most of their paper ships were designed with the realities of combat in mind and the intention of being built, so I have no problem seeing what those ships would have looked like. But remember what I said earlier about "the most impressive era of naval warfare" and "exciting 'what if' scenarios?" The era is interesting and the hypothetical scenarios are intriguing because of how impressive the real, physical, tested ships were. Ships like, for example, HMS Hood, HMS Illustrious, HMS Glowworm, Richelieu, La Fantasque, Akagi, Kaga, USS Enterprise, USS Maury, Andrea Doria, and dozens of others that are not yet in the game. ​This is the main issue that I, and I think many others, have with the inclusion of Russian ships: the time and energy that WarGaming spends researching, modeling, and implementing them is time and energy not spent on more historically relevant ships. You can claim Western bias all you want, but that won't change the actual data. Compared to the major naval powers, the Russian navy's number of decisive actions is objectively insignificant.

 

This is WG's game, though, and they are fully within their rights to implement any ships they want in any order they want. It's still fun, and I'm definitely going to keep playing for a long while even if certain aspects irritate me. I just wanted to articulate why I, at least, disagree with their approach to providing new ship lines.

 

*I think Goku would win, btw.

[dseehafer]

Schlacht-wurst + Google Translate = Slaughter-Sausage 

 

[Submarine_Wahoo]

So what are you really asking for? 8 of 11 Russian destroyers are real (7 of 10 if you consider Gremyashchiy as the same as Gnevny). 8 of 13 Russian cruisers are real (7 of 12 if you consider Krasny Krim the same as Svietlana). The single Russian battleship in the game is real enough, with construction was over halfway completed when it was halted. 14 of 22 (or 16 of 24) is not bad for a nation without much of an imprint on naval history of the period: both cases are above 60% real ships.

 

Also, doesn't the lack of historical significance of the Russian Navy play into your desire for gratuitous what if scenarios? You know: what if the Russian navy did more than it did in real life?

[Bjoring]

So what are you really asking for? 8 of 11 Russian destroyers are real (7 of 10 if you consider Gremyashchiy as the same as Gnevny). 8 of 13 Russian cruisers are real. The single Russian battleship in the game is real enough (construction was over halfway completed when it was halted). 15 of 23 (or 16 of 24) is quite good for a navy without much of an imprint on naval history of the period.

 

Also, doesn't the lack of historical significance of the Russian Navy play into your desire for gratuitous what if scenarios? You know: what if the Russian navy did more than it did in real life?

 

​Did you read the second paragraph? To simplify: plausible paper ships are fine, but less interesting than historical ships. Of the real, physical ships, it is the ones that actively participated in decisive actions and campaigns that make naval history so appealing. I dislike that relatively inconsequential ships are given design priority over more relevant, influential ones.

[Xero_Snake]

Who said anything about Mother Russia's finest?

[MnemonScarlet]

I would not like having the H-44 in-game, because that particular schlacht-wurst was a pipe dream from any perspective.

 

H-44 is such a bloated monstrosity that she approaches Baltimax draft. She might actually be too long to pass the straits. I have to wonder if any yard would have been actually capable of building and launching her.

[Bjoring]

Who said anything about Mother Russia's finest?

 

​I did, paraphrasing your thread: "Well, there they are. A rag-tag fleets being a salad bowls filled with a mix of ageing WWI-era ships, contemporary inter-war warships, foreign leased comrades-in-arms, postwar greenhorns and an unfortunate stillborn potentials. Despite that they actually yield strong potential to become a force to reckon with. People treat them like a laughing stock, but it don't matter to them. Even if they got compensated with more modern ships and being named an existential mockery to the eyes of elitists, it doesn't matter. Even if they're a fraud and the navy being called an empty husk because of this in the eyes of the textbook history ideologues, it doesn't matter. Whatever those ships are, they are a family of soldiers who are willing to fight to their bitter end to fulfill their dreams to shine the navy to keep their heads up regardless of their circumstances. They will not stop pursuing as long as their ancestors' legacies keeping their esteems alive. Their dream is not wrong. They're here to stay no matter what, and you can change nothing."

 

Your version is a bit wordy, I think

 

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/116482-in-response-to-this-thread/

[VTAdmiral]

I hope you realize when you refer to them as "Mother Russia's Finest" that you're talking about a navy that committed several battleships, cruisers, and destroyers to sink 4 British fishing trawlers and lost.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogger_Bank_incident

[Bjoring]

I hope you realize when you refer to them as "Mother Russia's Finest" that you're talking about a navy that committed several battleships, cruisers, and destroyers to sink 4 British fishing trawlers and lost.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogger_Bank_incident

 

​I may have been slightly facetious, yes.

[VTAdmiral]

 

​I may have been slightly facetious, yes.

 

Lay off the vodka, comrade.

[Xero_Snake]

That's just for you, while I did not bothered to embellish them to look like they're as if the top of the world. Try name-calling them or belittling them, they just moved on with their lives.

 

You could just speak in my thread, while talking tough on me with your elitist attitude by calling others a "noobs" when I disagree with someone else who refuse to accept alternative facts. You're unbelievable.

 

Try go to Russian archives and dig out your desirable historical facts you want to see.

[mofton]

So what are you really asking for? 8 of 11 Russian destroyers are real (7 of 10 if you consider Gremyashchiy as the same as Gnevny). 8 of 13 Russian cruisers are real (7 of 12 if you consider Krasny Krim the same as Svietlana). The single Russian battleship in the game is real enough, with construction was over halfway completed when it was halted. 14 of 22 (or 16 of 24) is not bad for a nation without much of an imprint on naval history of the period: both cases are above 60% real ships.

 

5 of 10 Russian cruisers never saw service - http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/91734-cruisers-steel-paper-or-fiction/

6 of 12 Russian destroyers never saw service - http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/92493-destroyers-steel-paper-or-fiction/

1 of 1 Russian battleships never saw service and it's so OP it's not allowed to be sold any more. Meanwhile soon we'll have 12 USN BB's in game of which 11 will have seen service.

 

Real's kind of irrelevant. Commissioned and did anything should be the bar.

 

On the other hand 2/10 British Cruisers are fictional, and 8 of them saw actual combat (with like, legit guns!) so clearly they shouldn't really have been added. Most conjectural RN DD lines have 9/9 real saw-service ships.

 

 

Seen service means you generate these interesting things called 'sea trial data', 'humorous anecdotes'. 'real shortcomings' and 'real refits' but well I suppose stuff that... coming up with a bit of paper and then welding 2 bits of steel together's impressive I suppose, it's like that time I almost took a supermodel home...

[poeticmotion]

This is not a historical simulator, it's an arcade game. 

 

Also, people don't seem to consider that the North American server is WG's smallest market. The Russian server is WG's largest market. Therefore, the Russian lines are bound to be a higher priority for WG than they would be in a vacuum. Just like many Murican players will primarily stick to USN lines or at least start there before branching off, many Russian players would want to do the same with VMF units. 

 

Without the Russian server, this game probably wouldn't make enough money to be developed to the level it is, if it was available at all. I think WG does a decent job of balancing development of lines from more historically significant navies with lines that are designed to appeal to other elements of their player base. 

[Bjoring]

That's just for you, while I did not bothered to embellish them to look like they're as if the top of the world. Try name-calling them or belittling them, they just moved on with their lives.

 

You could just speak in my thread, while talking tough on me with your elitist attitude by calling others a "noobs" when I disagree with someone else who refuse to accept alternative facts. You're unbelievable.

 

Try go to Russian archives and dig out your desirable historical facts you want to see.

 

Refusing to accept "alternative facts" is the smart move. I find real facts to be much more useful. They don't sound like they were manufactured by a soviet propagandist.

[mofton]

The Russian server is WG's largest market.

 

That's not apparently obvious according to warships.today and other sites. Unless there's a collection methodology issue it would seem that 3x as many Leningrad games happened in the NA server c.f. RU in the last 2 weeks. I'd roughly equate games-played with sales.

 

Also warships.today has for instance Khabarovsk getting half the RU games as NA. So unpopular on the most patriotic ships and stingy?

[mr3awsome]

On the other hand 2/10 British Cruisers are fictional, and 8 of them saw actual combat (with like, legit guns!) so clearly they shouldn't really have been added. Most conjectural RN DD lines have 9/9 real saw-service ships.

Fiction is a word reserved for WG's creations. 

Neptune & Minotaur are both paper, and relatively far along within the paper scale as well. 

 

As for RN DD lines you can have two complete lines, couple of supplements here and there and half a dozen to a dozen premiums using 3 paper ships only. 

[Padoru_]

Also, people don't seem to consider that the North American server is WG's smallest market. The Russian server is WG's largest market.

 

Do you have the source for statement?

[mofton]

Fiction is a word reserved for WG's creations. 

 

I should have said 'non-commissioned' which is the most stringent standard you can reasonably apply and the only one that isn't arguing the difference between 'should've' 'couldn've' 'would've' and ultimately 'didn't'.

[Killjoy1941]

What's the better plan?

 

1. We're having trouble getting A data on B ship, so everyone gets the rest of the week off until it arrives.

2. We're having trouble getting A data on B ship, so everyone needs to get working on X data for Y ship (from the archives on the other side of the Neva) until A arrives.

 

Because WG is, you know, a for-profit company and stuff.

[poeticmotion]

atl_grunge, on 20 February 2017 - 08:07 AM, said:

poeticmotion, on 20 February 2017 - 07:52 AM, said:

Also, people don't seem to consider that the North American server is WG's smallest market. The Russian server is WG's largest market.

Do you have the source for statement?

Not off the top of my head, tbh. I've seen the stats referenced but I don't have it bookmarked. 

 

Even if I am or the stats I've seen referenced are wrong about the relative sizes of the server, the point remains that WG is a Russian bloc company and Russia has a sizable user base, so it doesn't invalidate anything I said. 

[ReddNekk]

I hope you realize when you refer to them as "Mother Russia's Finest" that you're talking about a navy that committed several battleships, cruisers, and destroyers to sink 4 British fishing trawlers and lost.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogger_Bank_incident

 

Has the Roo-Shin navy ever won a sea battle?

[mofton]

2. We're having trouble getting A data on B ship, so everyone needs to get working on X data for Y ship (from the archives on the other side of the Neva) until A arrives.

 

3. Let's work on a line V. which has previously been significantly undersubscribed and shows no signs of significant uptake by the playerbase

 

Maybe something's gone badly wrong if you're at point 1, 2 or 3?

[Killjoy1941]

3. Let's work on a line V. which has previously been significantly undersubscribed and shows no signs of significant uptake by the playerbase

 

Maybe something's gone badly wrong if you're at point 1, 2 or 3?

 

By whose standards and value judgments?

 

Are they still making money? Is the player base steady? Are people playing the new ships?

 

Yes, yes, and yes. It's not my game to make, my company to run, nor are any of these my obligations to meet. I'm not worried and I can wait patiently for my toys if I have to. It's not an issue because all current malcontent can be conveniently shoved into the "I want my favorite toys now!" bag of motivation.

[_Spade_]

That's just for you, while I did not bothered to embellish them to look like they're as if the top of the world. Try name-calling them or belittling them, they just moved on with their lives.

 

You could just speak in my thread, while talking tough on me with your elitist attitude by calling others a "noobs" when I disagree with someone else who refuse to accept alternative facts. You're unbelievable.

 

Try go to Russian archives and dig out your desirable historical facts you want to see.

 

You are aware that "alternative fact" is a euphemism for "lie", right?

[Palladia]

This is a thing now?  Instead of actually responding to threads you guys are making NEW threads to garner more attention?