Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
TheDreadnought

The fix for Bow Camping. . . and the game.

57 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,073
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
4,701 posts

The Iowa modeling thread kinda touched on this some, but I want to call it out specifically and maybe encourage WG to do something about it.

 

 

Right now WG does a "pseudo-historical" model of warships armor and internals.  They are limited by technology limitations to model the historical detail without significantly ramping up the horsepower required to run the game.  On top of this, they tweak the models for game balance.  The result is models that are only "inspired by" history, not actually reflecting it.  Also, because of the way the mechanics work, you're less vulnerable when you are facing bow on.  Add that to the pseudo-historical model, and you're horribly vulnerable when showing your side.


 

It's time to change your philosophical approach. . . Make the ships more historical in terms of performance in the game, instead of more historical in internal details.  We've seen the current approach produces weird gameplay and results.


 

All WG has to do is simplify the internals models, and use more uniform armor schemes inspired by real life.  For instance, Iowa might get a closer to uniform belt based on historical thickness and angle, with citadel spaces only under the turrets inside their armored barbettes.

The goal is to make ships more vulnerable from the front, but fairly tough on the broadside.  Maybe even increase fire resistance to broadside hits vs. fore and aft hits?


 

Anyway, there are a lot of ways to do this, but the result will fix a lot of problems with WOWS.  You will get:


 

- The end of bow camping

- Battleships that can take a hit on the side, and therefore find it worth it to bring all guns into play

- Crossing the T becomes a great tactic

- Cruisers, with reduced citadel spaces, won't get instant-deleted anymore

- More pounding of ships, and less "one mistake = death."

- A game driven by maneuver, flanking, as opposed to static shooting.

 

Basically, your shooting, impact, and penetration models are abstracted. . . make the internals/armor models more abstract and tweak as necessary to be "soft on the nose, tough on the flank."


 

A side effect of this change is that by modeling ships to produce historical performance, instead of historical internal detail, you will also reduce the workload on servers and users machines.

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,179
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts

There was a clue in how the problems found in WoWs came into existence in the candid remarks made by the president of the company. He said part of the problem, he felt, that WoWs and WoWPs faced was that they tried to make them "WoT but..." With that in mind the way armor is handled in game, with bouncing and overpenning and massive damage from singular hits and all the like are a clear holdover from this development approach.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
922
[TSF_1]
Members
3,301 posts
7,732 battles

Sure! The reason I quit WoT was that I didn't like how quickly you would die. Your proposed changes could extend that feel of being able to take some hits.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,179
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts

I posted an idea, that I've said before, in the Citadel complaint thread, about inverting the sigma and dispersion values to get the correct vertical ellipsis dispersion pattern for guns, decreasing penetration for BB/Cl/CA shells by a reasonably large factor, and increasing damage to superstructures by a fair factor, and you get a game where going broadside makes sense, as it reduces how many shots from the enemy can hit your *vulnerable* superstructure and lets your armor bear the brunt, and makes going bow in, angled, or running away, inadvisable as it will increase the amount of shots you take. It will also give cruisers a huge boost, as given their higher shell accuracy than BB's, can specifically use their AP now to nail the super structure and rack up damage.

 

You can accomplish this without altering any armor models (which is very difficult), it's just changing set values on a number of factors, which is far easier.

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33,574
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
24,687 posts
19,824 battles

There is a much, much easier and quicker fix available, if you're the type of person that believes something needs 'fixing'. I'm making a thread about it right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
127
[USMC-]
Members
318 posts
8,616 battles

Perhaps increasing the dispersion making harder to get those cit hits and to encourage bringing all guns to bear?

 

NVM; ninja'd.

Edited by cthuhulu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,149
[HINON]
Privateers
6,266 posts
3,308 battles

There is a much, much easier and quicker fix available, if you're the type of person that believes something needs 'fixing'. I'm making a thread about it right now.

 

Personally, I see nothing wrong with the game at the moment. However, I'm looking forward to seeing whatever you write about this. Maybe you can even convince me otherwise. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,179
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts

There is a much, much easier and quicker fix available, if you're the type of person that believes something needs 'fixing'. I'm making a thread about it right now.

 

Out of curiosity, what is the idea? Accuracy reduction? Change in shell pattern? Change in damage values? Remove citadels (which is an idea I never see thrown around). There are many simple ways to 'fix' the persieved issues in game, most of which avoid nerfing ships in a way that makes them not fun to play.
Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,229 posts
7,820 battles

Crossing the T is a relic of the age of sail.  It was obsolete as soon as the first ship with a rotating turret was built.  Crossing the T, as a tactic, has little value or use in modern ship on ship action.  Just like the lines of massed infantry prevalent in the age of musket has no business in modern infantry warfare.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,588
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,009 posts
4,623 battles

Crossing the T is a relic of the age of sail.  It was obsolete as soon as the first ship with a rotating turret was built.  Crossing the T, as a tactic, has little value or use in modern ship on ship action.  Just like the lines of massed infantry prevalent in the age of musket has no business in modern infantry warfare.

 

:great:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,418
[YIKES]
Members
3,880 posts
23,604 battles

Do people rly bow camp that much? In my games ofc I do see such players but they are not that common and usually get punished by HE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,179
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts

Crossing the T is a relic of the age of sail.  It was obsolete as soon as the first ship with a rotating turret was built.  Crossing the T, as a tactic, has little value or use in modern ship on ship action.  Just like the lines of massed infantry prevalent in the age of musket has no business in modern infantry warfare.

 

Not to devolve the discussion BUT, considering that, from a mechanical standpoint, technology between pre-WWI and the end of WWII, in a naval gunnery and armor sense, is largely the same (it was still large AP round trying to push it way through layers of Steel), crossing the T proved itself useful at a number of Battleship v. Battleship engagements, to the point where ships involved that would have been destroyed alternatively were not due in large part to allowing their armor to bear the brunt.

 

Similarly, crossing the T was actually a poor tactic in the Age of Sail. Nelson proved that to great effect at both the Nile and especially at Trafalgar where he basically ignored all formation tactics and got into a general melee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,179
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts

Do people rly bow camp that much? In my games ofc I do see such players but they are not that common and usually get punished by HE.

 

The problem is less bow camping and more the punishment for sailing broadside. It creates a system where, as we see day in and day out in game, that people in Battleships and cruisers are extremely skittish to damage, and play very gingerly. If armor worked better, not the way history says, not the way physics says, but the way it should from a gameplay standpoint, then you would see more aggressive play which is what most people want to see, but are too afraid to do themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,389
[SWFSH]
[SWFSH]
Beta Testers
2,504 posts
6,178 battles

Crossing the T is a relic of the age of sail.  It was obsolete as soon as the first ship with a rotating turret was built.  Crossing the T, as a tactic, has little value or use in modern ship on ship action.  Just like the lines of massed infantry prevalent in the age of musket has no business in modern infantry warfare.

Not to mention most of the later warships have 2/3rds of their firepower in the front, crossing the T against a singular target is making them a drastically smaller target, and they'll still be able to shoot at you with the majority of their firepower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
148
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
894 posts
3,937 battles

There is a much, much easier and quicker fix available, if you're the type of person that believes something needs 'fixing'. I'm making a thread about it right now.

Hmm will want to read.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with the game at the moment. However, I'm looking forward to seeing whatever you write about this. Maybe you can even convince me otherwise. :)

:sceptic:

 

Out of curiosity, what is the idea? Accuracy reduction? Change in shell pattern? Change in damage values? Remove citadels (which is an idea I never see thrown around). There are many simple ways to 'fix' the persieved issues in game, most of which avoid nerfing ships in a way that makes them not fun to play.

Evolutions of my thoughts reading this: Hmm... BBs will hate that(Accuracy)... okay(shell pattern)... aaaa(damage)... What? Nooooooooooooooo.(citadels)

 

Edited by Dr_Richtofen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,179
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts

Not to mention most of the later warships have 2/3rds of their firepower in the front, crossing the T against a singular target is making them a drastically smaller target, and they'll still be able to shoot at you with the majority of their firepower.

 

Except that's the exact opposite to how naval gunnery worked. The shot patterns in game are woefully different from how shell patters worked in reality, and most importantly, our superstructures being riddled, FCS's being knocked out, and things of that nature have 0 effect on our fighting performance, while on a real ship, this is crippling. Bismarck's last battle trues this out. Very few penetrating shots were made to her belt, but her super structure was riddled to pieces and left her more or less dead in the water. Crossing the T enables you to take advantage to how shell paterns work and also ensures that a large proportion of enemy shells dont bounce harmlessly off your armor and instead riddle and destroy the superstructure, killing and destroying vital persons/parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,588
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,009 posts
4,623 battles

 

Not to devolve the discussion BUT, considering that, from a mechanical standpoint, technology between pre-WWI and the end of WWII, in a naval gunnery and armor sense, is largely the same (it was still large AP round trying to push it way through layers of Steel), crossing the T proved itself useful at a number of Battleship v. Battleship engagements, to the point where ships involved that would have been destroyed alternatively were not due in large part to allowing their armor to bear the brunt.

 

Similarly, crossing the T was actually a poor tactic in the Age of Sail. Nelson proved that to great effect at both the Nile and especially at Trafalgar where he basically ignored all formation tactics and got into a general melee.

 

Isn't there only like couple situations were crossing the t happened with BB's? 

 

Jutland  (which was ineffective ? ) 

 

Surigao Straight (The IJN force was vastly inferior to the USN group...? USN DD's did most of the work knocking out half of the IJN force with Torpedoes. Crossing the was all flash and no substance vs a vastly inferior force that had no Radar or any kind of fleet left at that point. ) 

 

If you could point out some actual clear useful situations were crossing the T worked I'd be very interested? 

 

 

Edited by Cobraclutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,179
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts

 

Evolutions of my thoughts reading this: Hmm... BBs will hate that... okay... aaaa... What? Nooooooooooooooo.

 

 

To me the best idea is to make super structure damage a thing, in the sense much higher damage values than the more often than not overpens currently yield, give our dispersion paterns a 90 degree twist, and reduce overall penetration values on BB/CL/CA AP by a reasonably high margin, enough where yes, it is more or less impossible short of point blank range (5 km or less) for a 305mm gun to penetrate 305mm of armor. Now going broadside matters, Cruisers and make Swiss cheese of super structures, and two BB's banging away at each other is more interesting than two guys throwing rocks at each other from forts positioned 18 km away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,136
[RG]
Members
2,894 posts
7,126 battles

Crossing the T is a relic of the age of sail.  It was obsolete as soon as the first ship with a rotating turret was built.  Crossing the T, as a tactic, has little value or use in modern ship on ship action.  Just like the lines of massed infantry prevalent in the age of musket has no business in modern infantry warfare.

 

second battle of Leyte Gulf. USN crossed the IJN's "T" while DD's torped their flanks. Devastating. OP has it right. Also, Nelson essentially engaged the French and Spanish line by crossing their "T" in three places, splitting them. The same tactic applies. Bring broadsides into play against bow or stern and focus fire. 
Edited by Thornir
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
4,296 posts
6,921 battles

Bow camping exists because the playerbase wants it to exist. Remember when WG tried to take it away by reducing battleship constructional hull armor?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,149
[HINON]
Privateers
6,266 posts
3,308 battles

There is a much, much easier and quicker fix available, if you're the type of person that believes something needs 'fixing'. I'm making a thread about it right now.

Hmm will want to read.

 

Personally, I see nothing wrong with the game at the moment. However, I'm looking forward to seeing whatever you write about this. Maybe you can even convince me otherwise. :)

:sceptic:

 

Out of curiosity, what is the idea? Accuracy reduction? Change in shell pattern? Change in damage values? Remove citadels (which is an idea I never see thrown around). There are many simple ways to 'fix' the persieved issues in game, most of which avoid nerfing ships in a way that makes them not fun to play.

Evolutions of my thoughts reading this: Hmm... BBs will hate that(Accuracy)... okay(shell pattern)... aaaa(damage)... What? Nooooooooooooooo.(citadels)

 

 

What? I see nothing wrong with the game. It's perfectly playable, and you can do well in each class of ship. There are a few ships that obviously need adjustments—but for the large part, I'm impressed at how well built WoWs is.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,179
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts

 

Jutland  (which was ineffective ? ) 

 

Surigao Straight (The IJN force was vastly inferior to the USN group...? USN DD's did most of the work knocking out half of the IJN force with Torpedoes. Crossing the was all flash and no substance vs a vastly inferior force that had no Radar or any kind of fleet left at that point. ) 

 

If you could point out some actual clear useful situations were crossing the T worked I'd be very interested? 

 

 

 

It was HIGHLY effective at Jutland, Jericho did it twice in an hour, and more than anything convinced Scheer to break off the attack (also is why the Grand Fleet suffered 0 ships lost at that stage of the battle and only 1 Grand Fleet Battleship actually was hit, while the German Battleships were riddled to almost sinking 3 of them).

 

Surigao Strait is a bad example actually as it was really a waste of time since most of the IJN ships were damaged already in torpedo attacks.

 

Better example is Tsushima, where Crossing the T lead to absolute dismal casualty proportions, the Battle Off Samar, where DD's and DE's crossed the T of CA and DD lines and managed to have single DE's fight off entire columns of enemies, and the 1st Naval Battle of Guadalcanal Canal, the IJN largely crossed the T of the American Cruisers to horrifying results.

 

In the reverse, the loss of the Hood is largely chalked up to Holland not getting into position fast enough to turn his side armor to Bismarck, leaving him open not to plunging fire as often *mis* understood, but rather to fire in general as being lengthwise to a target makes you easier, not harder, to hit in reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,389
[SWFSH]
[SWFSH]
Beta Testers
2,504 posts
6,178 battles

To me the best idea is to make super structure damage a thing, in the sense much higher damage values than the more often than not overpens currently yield

I can agree to this, and I would like to see vital components of the superstructure (namely FCS systems, radar, etc) take damage similar to a penetration when hit by AP since they are vital components.

 

But similarly, most of the time people are just aiming for the largest target possible - and any hits to these components would almost entirely be down to RNG to have those shells hit those areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,179
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts

 

Also, Nelson essentially engaged the French and Spanish line by crossing their "T" in three places, splitting them. The same tactic applies. Bring broadsides into play against bow or stern and focus fire. 

 

Actually Nelson purposely avoid this, in a manner of speaking allowing the French and Spanish to cross HIS T, but forced a general melee. Nelson was the best example of how Crossing the T *Didn't* matter in the Age of Sail, as he didn't do it at Trafalgar and he really didn't do it at the Nile either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
148
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
894 posts
3,937 battles

 

To me the best idea is to make super structure damage a thing, in the sense much higher damage values than the more often than not overpens currently yield, give our dispersion paterns a 90 degree twist, and reduce overall penetration values on BB/CL/CA AP by a reasonably high margin, enough where yes, it is more or less impossible short of point blank range (5 km or less) for a 305mm gun to penetrate 305mm of armor. Now going broadside matters, Cruisers and make Swiss cheese of super structures, and two BB's banging away at each other is more interesting than two guys throwing rocks at each other from forts positioned 18 km away.

 

Now while that is a interesting idea I still wonder if it would hit BBs a little hard because of how much super structure they tend to have. I think it should be that these areas matter in some way more since they often hold areas such as the bridge and other parts of the command that would make a difference if damaged or lost. As far as accuracy goes a interesting idea seeing as at the moment it makes no sense how 3 shells from the same turret can end up in 2 different states to the right and left of where one aimed because of the change from alpha testing.

 

Also edit to my other post to make it clearer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×