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

World of Simulation?

42 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

5,115
[SIM]
Members
5,365 posts
8,845 battles

A lot of times, folks around here seem to get entangled in discussions about the arcade nature of World of Warships, and how that nature affects the historical accuracy of the naval battles that the game portrays. With that in mind, how would World of Warships be different if it was more of a simulation and less of an arcade game? As someone without much background with naval combat games, I'm curious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27
[TFLT]
[TFLT]
Members
102 posts
2,757 battles

For starters, the engagement distances would be about double and shell accuracy would probably max out at about 3%. No reloads on torpedoes, as most ships (especially destroyers) didn't have extra or the time do so under fire would be prohibitive. Just to name a few.

Edited by Caducus46

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
575 posts
3,075 battles

Just getting there, plotting, planing and maneuvering would take up a lot of time. In high end flight sims, just getting ordnance load-out right, and mission parameters takes at least 10 to 20 minutes, then getting off the runway is another entire process, not to mention cold startup.

 

Edited by SmirkingGerbil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,928
[HINON]
Members
13,705 posts

Shells would take longer to get to target, the damage model of ships would be vastly different, how AA works would be different, balance would not be a thing. DD's would be very common and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[O7]
[O7]
Beta Testers
1,615 posts
10,296 battles

Just image all the bbs shooting each other form the edges of the map and then you'd kinda get the feel for what a realistic battle might look like.

Share this post


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

No hitpoints. Turrets don't magically traverse and elevate for the shells to land where you're pointing a mouse but you'd have to input bearing and elevation yourself. Hit rates would go down the drain with engagement ranges more than twice what they are in the game and ships roughly half the size. Ships would no longer travel in factors of warp speed, but very slow. No DD would go within 15 km of a BB lest it get rend asunder by secondaries. Fires could spread and detonate magazines. No magical 'put out fires now' button. No magical 'fix flooding now' button. 25 DDs and 10 CLs / CAs per BB. No neat tier-by-tier +/-2 MM (See Iowa vs Katori).

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,194
[SYN]
Members
5,877 posts
13,296 battles

Other than the appearances of the ships themselves, it would be a completely different game in almost every aspect.

 

As it is now, much about this game is very far removed from the simulation of reality. 

 

 

 

Edited by Kuckoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,323
[NERO]
Members
3,630 posts

IJN Oxygen torps would be a lot harder to see, and longer range. In reality they were so hard to spot and such long range that hits from them were sometimes mistaken for mine impacts. 

You also wouldn't see AA guns being manned anywhere near turrets on battleships that were actively firing. The concussion from Iowa firing her guns, for example, could kill people still on deck. 

You'd also need to track casualties from hits to the ship and model which part of the crew they were from. Hits to the bridge could kill the command staff. Engine room flooding might kill some or all of the engineers. Etc etc... 

 

Edit: Oh and most DDs would carry between 1 and 0 reloads for their torps. 

 

Edit 2: Also almost forgot... the process of recovering a float plane would be pretty complicated too, including the host ship having to do a circle to create a flatter part of ocean for the plane to land on, and then take time sitting still to haul it back on board. Actually I'm pretty sure they /didn't/ recover float planes in the middle of battle in the first place. 

Edited by TTK_Aegis
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,866 posts

No torpedo reloads, torpedo duds, many battles at night, everything an Ocean map, radar always on, limited info about the enemy, low hit probability, most damage can't be repaired in battle timeframe, damaged ships run away, captain morale a factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
4,252 posts
9,421 battles

This would not even be the same game, not even remotely close, as so many point out.

 Can you imagine most WoWS players, the 1- 5 minute attention span ones, in a proper naval simulation game?

I can't & if you can, what mind altering substance are you using?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,886
[HINON]
Privateers, Privateers
6,800 posts
5,017 battles

You could see Iowa's in your Katori.

10 minutes ago, Lert said:

No neat tier-by-tier +/-2 MM (See Iowa vs Katori).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
467
[NSEW]
Members
2,098 posts
11,306 battles

This game would turn into manning one ship. Performing the duties of the crew of a particular ship (including the cook). No, Navy ship simulators would not be "fun". It would be decent trainer for the prospective Navy recruits.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,323
[NERO]
Members
3,630 posts
7 minutes ago, aethervox said:

This would not even be the same game, not even remotely close, as so many point out.

 Can you imagine most WoWS players, the 1- 5 minute attention span ones, in a proper naval simulation game?

I can't & if you can, what mind altering substance are you using?

Personally I think a really realistic WW2 naval game would be a lot of fun as a single player experience. As multiplayer though? No one's got time for that. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39,787
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
12,277 posts
10,382 battles

Oh jeez... Umm, let's see...

MOVEMENT

  • Movement is going to be very different.  Ships take a looooong time to get up to speed.  They take a loooong time to turn and a looooong time to slow down.
  • Beaching yourself would be catastrophic. If you're lucky, you would just hit a sand bar and the sudden stop wouldn't break anything.  Hitting something more solid might sink your ship.
  • Going at high speed for a long time would risk you breaking your engines.
  • If you collide with any ship, you're doomed, friend or enemy.
  • Seas aren't always flat.  Rough seas can be a real hazard for some ships -- especially those with poor seakeeping qualities or those that are top heavy.  You can risk capsizing.

DETECTION

  • Curvature of the earth, yo.  You can't see very far.  That's why so many ships had spotter aircraft.
  • Haze, humidity and smoke greatly affects vision for better or worse.  The first you might know of an enemy ship would be the massive plumes of smoke from its coal / oil fired engines.
  • When guns start firing, the smoke from the blasts adds to the confusion.  Mind that wind direction.  And god help you if someone starts burning.
  • Every ship was capable of laying thick palls of smoke at will.  Depending on wind direction this could make gunnery all but impossible.

GUNNERY

  • Very low accuracy.
  • Rangefinding done with a rangefinding mechanic (ie: line up images to guess range).
  • Shell flight times out to range would be close to triple what we see in game.
  • Good luck identifying the fall of your shells around a target.  Were those your shell splashes or your friend's?
  • Different reload times.  Italian BBs had up to a 45s reload, for example.

DAMAGE

  • Crew incapacitation is a thing.
  • Fires are super dangerous and can be caused by AP shell hits to not-happy-to-be-shot areas.
  • Flooding could (and will) occur from AP shell hits at or below the waterline.
  • Critical damage wouldn't be limited to the small selection of modules present.  Fire control directors were one of the most common critical hits historically and greatly impeded gunnery.  Similarly, the bridge(s) could be knocked out and reduce overall cohesion of command of a vessel.
  • Many ships would sink / be destroyed after only a few hits while others could absorb much more punishment.
  • Fun and Engaging detonations would very much be a thing.
  • God help you if you get hit by a torpedo.

DAMAGE CONTROL

  • Damage control is handled by the crew.  Some crews are better trained than others.  In addition, some damage can be easily handled.  Others less so.  Is that secondary ammo bunker on fire?  Well, should you risk your crew trying to put it out or just let it burn out instead?
  • Flooding and dealing with lists would be huuuuge.  You'd be managing buoyancy and balance of your ship.  Going fast with open holes in your ship might tear them open bigger and cause you even more problems.
  • Some stuff just can't be fixed.  Rudder get shot out?  Sucks to be you.  Better hope it's just the steering gears and not some external problem that will require frogmen or a drydock to fix.
  • Fires will kill your ship.  Seriously.  Almost as fast as flooding.
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,185
[WOLF3]
Members
28,142 posts
24,488 battles

With realism, people often cherry pick stuff they'd like.  But with realism, there's also things that make it much harder, dangerous.

 

Torpedoes would be more powerful but they were also a safety issue.  Detonations caused by hits to torpedo tube launchers were a thing, most especially Japanese Long Lances.  One of the earliest theories on HMS Hood's demise was a hit to her torpedo tubes causing the catastrophe.  The US Navy stripped torpedoes off most of their Cruisers because of the liability they presented.  Japanese CA Chokai, a veteran of early war glories of the IJN, met her end when a 5" shell from an American CVE's secondaries hit her torpedo tubes, causing massive explosions that crippled the ship and made her dead in the water.

 

 

USS White Plains?  CVE?  What's that?  THIS sank a powerful Japanese Heavy Cruiser with Secondaries hits to her torpedo tubes.

chvy2j79vy8z.jpg

Radar had far longer ranges and were ALWAYS ON.

 

Not all Radar was created equal.

 

Radar access was not equal.  The Allies had more of them, the Americans in particular had more and BETTER radar sets, and threw them on everything.  Even Submarines and PT Boats got Radar, every DD got Radar.  Meanwhile, the Japanese were in the stone age in fielding Radar.  

 

CVs had much longer aircraft servicing times but had far more flexibility in their air groups, their ordnance loadouts, capability to group up with other CVs for mass strikes.  People don't like what 2 CVs can do?  LOL!  Try the 6 CV attack the Japanese did with Pearl Harbor.  Or how the US Navy sent 1100 planes against Japan's 100 for the Battle of Cape Engano in 1944.  Or how 260 American planes attacked Kurita's mighty Center Force damaging many ships and sinking Musashi before they even got into gun range of Allied ships.  And of course, the hundreds of planes sent against Yamato's task force in 1945 sinking her and many of her escorts for huge loss of life for Japan.

 

The Battle starts much sooner on a far larger map.  As your team tries to close range for a battle, you may be spotted early by enemy aircraft and the CVs will start drilling you before you even get into gun range.  You could be spotted hundreds and hundreds of miles away and under air attack before you get into gun range.

 

WoWS doesn't really show how bad some navies were in anti-aircraft capability.  It's far worse and embarrassing for some out there.

 

Ship gunnery was worse, far less accurate.  Battles took longer.

 

Logistics was a thing, a navy being able to upkeep their forces, especially in far flung distances was a concern.  Some navies made their ships capable of operating at long distances and an eye on easier upkeep.  Others didn't have that consideration and couldn't operate for s--t away from port.

 

Your ammunition was finite.

 

Torpedoes took much longer to reload.

 

That's just tip of the iceberg stuff.  A lot of things people may like but hate as well.  If we want to talk, "Realism" we need to talk the whole scope of it.  It's Arcade or Sim and Sims are a more niche thing in gaming.

 

 

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,418
[YIKES]
Members
3,880 posts
23,605 battles
9 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

 

 

 -After your ship is sunk she is done for good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
4,252 posts
9,421 battles
Just now, TTK_Aegis said:

Personally I think a really realistic WW2 naval game would be a lot of fun as a single player experience. As multiplayer though? No one's got time for that. 

Exactly, a single player turn based game. I reference an (old now, but still going) land based WW2 game: Steel Panthers & its later, modern version MBT, as an analogy to WoT.

 This 2D game is a very detailed 2D WW2 simulation which includes everything one saw on the battlefield. Depending on the point size of the scenario, 1 turn could take, literally, hours.

The vast majority of WG arcade game players couldn't accept this type of game. I'd even argue that many would be intellectually incapable of doing so. Which game, the arcade or simulation is better (ie: a more accurate depiction)? The simulation would win hands down , imho, however, the arcade game easily wins by popularity for ease of play.

So, agreed TTK _Aegis, not many have the time (or inclination) to play a realistic WW2 naval simulation game.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,501
[WOLF7]
Members
12,599 posts
41 minutes ago, SkaerKrow said:

A lot of times, folks around here seem to get entangled in discussions about the arcade nature of World of Warships, and how that nature affects the historical accuracy of the naval battles that the game portrays. With that in mind, how would World of Warships be different if it was more of a simulation and less of an arcade game? As someone without much background with naval combat games, I'm curious. 

 

It wouldn't exist. The market for a real sim is so tiny that the players couldn't possibly spend enough money to keep it afloat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,323
[NERO]
Members
3,630 posts
6 minutes ago, aethervox said:

I reference an (old now, but still going) land based WW2 game: Steel Panthers & its later, modern version MBT, as an analogy to WoT.

Steel Panthers was great. I love all those overly complex turn based strategy games by or inspired by the Avalon Hill company. Sadly I was the odd one out in my friend group when it came to my taste in strategy games. Very hard to get a game together, especially for the table top variety. 
"Let's play a game."
"Sure what?"
"How about a WW2 game?"
"Sounds fun!"
"Awesome, read this rules book."
"....ummm... I think I left my cat on fire... I need to go." 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
4,252 posts
9,421 battles
8 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Radar access was not equal.  The Allies had more of them, the Americans in particular had more and BETTER radar sets, and threw them on everything

One of my Uncles was a radar tech on a Cdn Corvette in WW2. He was that workbench tinkerer kind of mechanical bent guy. The early radars had reliability issues which my Uncle worked on, successfully enough that his Captain sent in a report about him. My Uncle told me he afterward got seconded to a 'confidential radar working group'  (they picked his brain, in other words, lol) which he could not talk about during the war. Thought you all might like this tidbit - it wasn't all 'Murican advancements. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,801
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
13,673 posts
45 minutes ago, Hatework said:

My Mutsu would never make it out of port  :Smile_sad:

You would purchase a Montana but then would be given an aircraft carrier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×