Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Lert

Lert's problems with Hood

176 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

BaronVonTom    161

 

they're no too fond of the USN either. :trollface:

 

Nice write up Lert!!!!

 

I hope your wrong Bill when it comes to the Enterprise.  But somehow I think you are and will be correct!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mesrith    2,361

I've talked before about balancing ship lines by gimmicks rather than giving us ships balanced on a base line and then adding gimmicks, and I'm not the only one. And Hood, to me, is the perfect example of exactly this happening. I hope this isn't an indication of the direction WG is going in.

 

It's not an indication of the direction they're going in, so much as the direction they've already gone.

 

I'll be completely honest.  While I still enjoy playing randoms with friends, my enthusiasm for the future of this game has been declining precipitously in the past couple of months.  Despite having finally added clans to the game, it's become apparent that any sort of end-game for tier 10s, clan content, team vs team battles, tournaments, or anything of that sort is not the direction that Wargaming cares to take this game.  Say what you will about World of Tanks, but for at least 4 years that game was built around end-game content that incentivized players to grind the tech trees.  Most long-term players had a few select premium ships to assist their grind, but the game was focused on encouraging people to spend time and money on moving up the tech trees.  World of Warships is, for all intents and purposes, focused primarily on pumping out new premium ships with "interesting" gimmicks, and we seem to have a higher volume of "whale" purchasers (myself included) that have allowed that business model to sustain the game.  Rather than simply adding cool, well-balanced, historical ships to the game, each new premium has to have something flashy to entice the whales to come back up for feeding.

 

I don't think it's a recipe for building an excellent game in the long-term, but it's obviously paying the bills for now.

Edited by Mesrith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple answer - and the answer I always have defaulted to from the start: Wargaming hates the British.

 

Actually, I think you are wrong  (maybe that should be I hope you are wrong). (although I agree it looks like that sometimes)   I think the issue is that WG got Lesta to build this game and as a studio they have a huge history of doing games which feature the Pacific Theater.  I have to honestly believe that the reason that a lot of this happens is because the people building this game just DO NOT KNOW THE FACTS and don't bother to do the proper research for all this stuff.

 

The Pacific theater was completely different from the Altlantic one and so they are constantly making assumptions based on what they do know and transfer it to what they don't know in the hope it will be fine.  (Unfortunately making assumptions is not a great way forward)

 

Whilst there are MANY groups that would help them, they just don't reach out to them to get the facts and they have lost sight of the "historical" part of all this to try and balance the Atlantic fleets into a Pacific war scenario which will NEVER end well.

 

M

Edited by MaliceA4Thought
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Khafni    639

I constantly learn new things and perspectives from you, Lert. Your commentaries are always welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HMS_Formidable    399

 

Actually, I think you are wrong  (maybe that should be I hope you are wrong). (although I agree it looks like that sometimes)   I think the issue is that WG got Lesta to build this game and as a studio they have a huge history of doing games which feature the Pacific Theater.  I have to honestly believe that the reason that a lot of this happens is because the people building this game just DO NOT KNOW THE FACTS and don't bother to do the proper research for all this stuff.

 

The Pacific theater was completely different from the Altlantic one and so they are constantly making assumptions based on what they do know and transfer it to what they don't know in the hope it will be fine.  (Unfortunately making assumptions is not a great way forward)

 

Whilst there are MANY groups that would help them, they just don't reach out to them to get the facts and they have lost sight of the "historical" part of all this to try and balance the Atlantic fleets into a Pacific war scenario which will NEVER end well.

 

M

 

That would explain a lot

And I fully agree with your obsevation about the general lack of understanding or knowledge about the Arctic, Atlantic, North Sea and Mediterranean theatres.

Very different from the circumstances of the Pacific

 

I think Wargaming has fallen into the forum-warrior trap

They are fixated on tables of statistics

They have little understanding of contexts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IronWolfV    6,719

 

Actually, I think you are wrong  (maybe that should be I hope you are wrong). (although I agree it looks like that sometimes)   I think the issue is that WG got Lesta to build this game and as a studio they have a huge history of doing games which feature the Pacific Theater.  I have to honestly believe that the reason that a lot of this happens is because the people building this game just DO NOT KNOW THE FACTS and don't bother to do the proper research for all this stuff.

 

The Pacific theater was completely different from the Altlantic one and so they are constantly making assumptions based on what they do know and transfer it to what they don't know in the hope it will be fine.  (Unfortunately making assumptions is not a great way forward)

 

Whilst there are MANY groups that would help them, they just don't reach out to them to get the facts and they have lost sight of the "historical" part of all this to try and balance the Atlantic fleets into a Pacific war scenario which will NEVER end well.

 

M

 

Just ask Prince of Wales how well that went.
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lert    16,228

they have lost sight of the "historical" part of all this to try and balance the Atlantic fleets into a Pacific war scenario which will NEVER end well.

 

Just quoting a key part of your post to acknowledge you. You know we've talked about this before and you know that I think your theory has a lot of merit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dseehafer    4,456

I agree with pretty much everything you have said Lert. 

 

What confuses me is why people think she doesn't belong at tier 7? Granted, as you said, her guns arent as good as they should be, but if they were she'd have tier 8 hitpoints and tier 6 guns... tier 7 is a happy medium and the only real place you can balance the Hood. Put her at tier 6 and now you have a ship who has more hitpoints than most tier 8 battleships and nearly the same firepower as the Warspite wrecking absolutely everything... put her at tier 8 and her armament just can't do the job. Hood has always been a tier 7 candidate, WG was right to put her there. 

 

Concerning her AA rockets, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they were ever actually used in combat. For all we know they could have been absolutely devastating in combat. I think WG is playing with the whole "unknown" factor to give them a bit of wiggle room as far as the performance of her rockets are concerned. If, however, they were used in combat and still proved a failure then you can ignore this last paragraph.

Edited by dseehafer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks! I was missing the Lert box from the otherwise awesome LWM review. I don't have $100 burning a hole in my pocket, and even if I did, the only reason I would buy her is because of her real history. I think I could make her work...but it would be a chore, and I'm here to have fun...That is a lot of coin for a port queen. I'd be more interested in the upcoming RN DD tell you the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But by giving HMS Renown fantasy cruiser-like buffs to her AP, she should have the advantage of  citadelling Yamato at greater angles...

 

Otherwise we could give Renown an "Ise" flavour by fantasy buffing her seaplanes into a major recon role

 

Or we could give her hydroacoustic and radar and spotter planes to make her a smoked DD killer (aplogies to Warspite, but she hasnt been given that historical flavor)

 

 

Renown will be fine for a number of reasons: her speed, her AA, her lower tier, and her better secondary. I expect her to be quite excellent (superb, even) at tier 6. A Warspite minus a turret, with a bit less armor, a lot more AA, and a full 7-8 knots more speed? Yes please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HMS_Formidable    399

 

Renown will be fine for a number of reasons: her speed, her AA, her lower tier, and her better secondary. I expect her to be quite excellent (superb, even) at tier 6. A Warspite minus a turret, with a bit less armor, a lot more AA, and a full 7-8 knots more speed? Yes please.

 

based on experience, this will never happen.

An Ise-Renown is far more likely based on current form

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IronWolfV    6,719

 

Underrated comment.

 

Umm, I don't know if that's sarcastic or not. Sarcasm meter currently broken. Please advise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with pretty much everything you have said Lert. 

 

What confuses me is why people think she doesn't belong at tier 7? Granted, as you said, her guns arent as good as they should be, but if they were she'd have tier 8 hitpoints and tier 6 guns... tier 7 is a happy medium and the only real place you can balance the Hood. Put her at tier 6 and now you have a ship who has more hitpints than most tier 8 battleships and nearly the same firepower as the Warspite wrecking absolutely everything... put her at tier 8 and her armament just can't do the job. Hood has always been a tier 7 candidate, WG was right to put her there. 

 

Concerning her AA rockets, correct me if I'm wrong, butt I don't think they were ever actually used in combat. For all we know they could have been absolutely devastating in combat. I think WG is playing with the whole "unknown" factor to give them a bit of wiggle room as far as the performance of her rockets are concerned.

 

UP stands for "Unrotated Projector." "Unrotated" meant that the barrel did not have any rifling, i.e., the projectile was not spin-stabilized. Each emplacement was a set of twenty smooth-bore tubes, usually fired ten at a time. Cordite was used to ignite ("Project") a 3-inch (7.62 cm) rocket motor which propelled a fin-stabilized 7-inch (17.8 cm) diameter Parachute and Cable (PAC) rocket which carried a 8.4 oz (238 g) mine. When the rocket reached approximately 1,000 feet (330 m), it exploded and put out the mine which was attached to three parachutes by 400 feet (122 m) of wire. The design concept was that if a plane hit the parachutes or the wire, it would then pull the mine into itself.

 

The first test fire of these weapons with dummy charges ended in disaster with ALL of the projectiles wrapped round the rigging of Admiral Toveys flagship.

 

These UP projectiles were kept in ready lockers close to the projectors. The sinking of HMS Hood showed that these stored weapons were rather flammable. They were also found to be an almost totally ineffective weapon, as the barrage took too long to establish (3 minutes for the rockets to get to height and deploy)  and was easily avoided. In addition, reloading was slow (> 5 minutes in ideal circumstances) and the mines showed an alarming tendency to drift back onto the firing ship. For these reasons, the UP was quickly replaced on surviving ships with either the British 2-pdr or the Bofors 40mm heavy AA machine gun.

 

They were so unreliable and the on deck stowage of the ammunition was so flammable that standing instructions in the RN prohibited them from use except in dire circumstances and were never used in action.

 

Hood was due for replacement when the Battle of Denmark Straight happened and never fired them even under test.

 

M

Edited by MaliceA4Thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Agreed, Hood was never an AA platform and her shells should be closer to Spite. I would have had a historical Hood at tier 6 (would have been WoWS version of TogII with her huge displacement) then the super AA of a failed concept. But... I'll take what I can get.

 

Ventis Secundus 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
goldeagle1123    1,220

 

Umm, I don't know if that's sarcastic or not. Sarcasm meter currently broken. Please advise.

 

Not sarcastic. I even gave you an upvote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HMS_Formidable    399

 

Umm, I don't know if that's sarcastic or not. Sarcasm meter currently broken. Please advise.

 

these are the people who hype Bismark scuttling, not realising every Japanese carrier lost at Midway was scuttled

And in December 1941, USN AA was at August 45 standard...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

based on experience, this will never happen.

An Ise-Renown is far more likely based on current form

 

I'm confused: why? Renown had the same type and number of float planes as any other capital ship - she wasn't in any way a carrier-battleship or some kind of hybrid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just ask Prince of Wales how well that went.

 

Exactly, so you are agreeing with me and by default so is Goldeagle..  my job here is done.

 

But the point is..  not that balancing Pacific to Atlantic is damn near impossible, it's the premise that ships should be balanced on what they were and not gimped or extended based on mythical gimmicks.

 

M

Edited by MaliceA4Thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hillslam    175

I agree with all of Lert's point about Hood, but I gotta wonder - why the surprise?

 

A ship getting "worn out stats" for some attributes, but "theoretical optimal" stats for others? So? Ok on one ship I admit thats a new one.

 

But come on - for years now we've had TWO WHOLE LINES where this was done: worn out stats on one line, optimal theoretical on the other! 

(Free donuts to whoever guesses which two lines we're talking about here before reading the next paragraph)

 

If you don't like the "game design"  /  "Balance"  / "National Flavor" decisions by WG for the limey ships, why be surprised after we've seen what was done to the 2nd BB line added - the USN.  Absolutely trashed. Artificially. None of them, at any tier, behave anywhere near their historical attributes. Nor do, for that matter, the jp battlewagons. Way off, just in the other direction: optimal hypothetical performance. Why? For game-design-balance-national-flavor reasons (and also to appease the international customer base of sick-of-america buyers, as well as the weaboos with wallets here in NA - but lets not get into that, its ok WG is here to make cash, were I CEO and making money off this title I'd sell t!ts to a turtle if it'd make money).

 

Why then, really, the outrage now?   

Edited by Hillslam
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IronWolfV    6,719

 

Not sarcastic. I even gave you an upvote.

Aha. Ok was not sure and thanks.

 

Exactly, so you are agreeing with me and by default so is Goldeagle..  my job here is done.

 

M

Well glad to know I can help out at times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dseehafer    4,456

 

UP stands for "Unrotated Projector." "Unrotated" meant that the barrel did not have any rifling, i.e., the projectile was not spin-stabilized. Each emplacement was a set of twenty smooth-bore tubes, usually fired ten at a time. Cordite was used to ignite ("Project") a 3-inch (7.62 cm) rocket motor which propelled a fin-stabilized 7-inch (17.8 cm) diameter Parachute and Cable (PAC) rocket which carried a 8.4 oz (238 g) mine. When the rocket reached approximately 1,000 feet (330 m), it exploded and put out the mine which was attached to three parachutes by 400 feet (122 m) of wire. The design concept was that if a plane hit the parachutes or the wire, it would then pull the mine into itself.

 

The first test fire of these weapons with dummy charges ended in disaster with ALL of the projectiles wrapped round the rigging of Admiral Toveys flagship.

 

These UP projectiles were kept in ready lockers close to the projectors. The sinking of HMS Hood showed that these stored weapons were rather flammable. They were also found to be an almost totally ineffective weapon, as the barrage took too long to establish (3 minutes for the rockets to get to height and deploy)  and was easily avoided. In addition, reloading was slow (> 5 minutes in ideal circumstances) and the mines showed an alarming tendency to drift back onto the firing ship. For these reasons, the UP was quickly replaced on surviving ships with either the British 2-pdr or the Bofors 40mm heavy AA machine gun.

 

They were so unreliable and the on deck stowage of the ammunition was so flammable that standing instructions in the RN prohibited them from use except in dire circumstances and were never used in action.

 

M

 

I know all of this. 

 

 

I'm just saying if they were never used in combat than it cannot be PROVEN that they were ineffective in combat.

 

Unreliable? Sure.

 

Bad concept? Sure.

 

Hazardous? Sure.

 

Ineffective in combat? Unknown, Untried, Unproven.

 

Because of this, WG can fudge the numbers all they want... just like paper ships. Because of the whole "unknown" factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I know all of this. 

 

 

I'm just saying if they were never used in combat than it cannot be PROVEN that they were ineffective in combat.

 

Unreliable? Sure.

 

Bad concept? Sure.

 

Hazardous? Sure.

 

Ineffective in combat? Unknown, Untried, Unproven.

 

Because of this, WG can fudge the numbers all they want... just like paper ships. Because of the whole "unknown" factor.

 

but the point is, I believe, that they shouldn't gimp known facts to "balance" unknown gimmicks which is what they are doing.  Dammit.. we KNOW (yes even us Brits)  that WW2 British AA was particularly crud, except for a few dedicated AA ships..  and we (or I should say I) am OK with that, but making the ship what is isn't and was never designed to be whilst supressing things it was and should be in game is not (or should not be) the way forward.

 

M

Edited by MaliceA4Thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lert    16,228

I agree with all of Lert's point about Hood, but I gotta wonder - why the surprise? 

 

If you don't like the "game design"  /  "Balance"  / "National Flavor" decisions by WG for the limey ships, why be surprised after we've seen what was done to the 2nd BB line added - the USN.  Absolutely trashed. Artificially. None of them, at any tier, behave anywhere near their historical attributes. Nor do, for that matter, the jp battlewagons. Way off, just in the other direction: optimal hypothetical performance. Why? For game-design-balance-national-flavor reasons (and also to appease the international customer base of sick-of-america buyers, as well as the weaboos with wallets here in NA - but lets not get into that, its ok WG is here to make cash, were I CEO and making money off this title I'd sell t!ts to a turtle if it'd make money).

 

Why then, really, the outrage now?   

 

You completely fail to understand the point in my OP.

 

First of all, I'm not outraged, I'm disappointed.

 

Second, I'm not surprised, I saw this coming. Just took this long to put it into words, and Hood was the perfect example.

 

Third, this thread is not about ship balance vs tiering. The USN and IJN examples you cite (in a very USN fanboyish way) are completely different from what I'm trying to discuss. Those ships are balanced on their own merit, on their own base line performance. You might not agree with their tiering and wish to see every IJN ship nerfed and downtiered and every USN ship buffed and uptiered because glorious undefeatable USN, but even you can't deny that those ships are slotted into their place based on merits of the in-game base ship itself without artificially moving it up or down via gimmicks. Lately though, WG has stepped away from that and has started balancing and tiering ships purely on gimmicks, rather than the ship's base line performance. The Royal Navy cruiser line is a very good example. Most of them would work fine a tier lower if given normal AP instead of super AP, meaning that the ships themselves are not balanced properly, but WG is artificually pushing them ahead of where they arguably belong in the name of 'national flavor'.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IronWolfV    6,719

Bah, all these gimmicks are really holding back the game. I mean I can understand national flavor to a point, but when it's actually limiting what you can do with the game instead of opening it up, maybe it's time to try a new approach.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×