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

Ideas for New Operations

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
162 posts
3,602 battles

Since "Nation Battles" were such a flop in World of Tanks, I don't see this game implementing that any time soon.

So what if they were done as PvE/Ops?

Battles like:

  • Java Sea
  • Savo Island
  • Cape Esperance
  • Tokyo Express
  • First and Second Battles of Guadalcanal
  • Munda
  • Emperess Augusta Bay
  • Suragaio Straight

These are WWII Pacific battles (it's my major area of expertise), so I'm sure that there are dozens that I haven't mentioned or even thought of.

You pick the class of ship you want to run that fits the parameters of the battle, MM puts you in a group that fits the OOB, and you're off!  No long que lines.

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
566 posts
1,461 battles

A scenarios campaign based on the successful surprise attack by US forces in surigao straits would be interesting.

I wonder how others would react to a campaign centralized around carriers like the battle of midway or operation Ten-Go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
353
[CUTER]
[CUTER]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,610 posts
8,804 battles

battle off samar(taffy 3)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,143 posts
3,273 battles

I think the Battle of Midway would be an interesting Operation. Something CV focused. It would be interesting to have 4x CVs in a pve match. 

Either an alternative history where you play as the IJN or more historical with the USN. Or possibly pearl harbour.. But that has high potential to rub people the wrong way.. Which is why I suggest Midway either true history or alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51
[WOLF5]
Members
272 posts
5,094 battles

I just want to drive a boat and blow stuff up, any operations with lots of enemies for me to shoot at Is good for me.  :Smile_Default:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
68 posts
3,933 battles

I've been hoping WG would introduce some sort of historical scenarios for a long time.

Operations are just the way to do it. Sign me up! :Smile_glasses:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
416 posts

Pacific Theater naval battles would be tough to handle from a marketing perspective, which is probably why operations have so far been mostly made up (Dunkirk aside). The vast majority of Pacific battles were U.S. victories. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,143 posts
3,273 battles
1 minute ago, guns_at_last_light said:

Pacific Theater naval battles would be tough to handle from a marketing perspective, which is probably why operations have so far been mostly made up (Dunkirk aside). The vast majority of Pacific battles were U.S. victories. 

I don't follow Tanks, but didn't they do some alt-history thing where German completed I think "Operation: Sealion" where they crossed the channel? 

Or was that just a thematic side story for the introduction of a London / British Isles map?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5
[-FV-]
Members
97 posts
831 battles

Something similar to Dunkirk like escorting Convoy PQ 17 to a safe zone against German aircraft and maybe some DD and torp boats.

(Submarines maybe??? Jusssst Maybe)

Edited by joshua011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
285
[O7]
Members
595 posts
7,843 battles

Guadalcanal and Tokyo Express runs would make great scenarios for wows. But they should be limited to Japanese ships for maximum immersion, like how the Dunkirk scenario was limited to UK and French destroyers.

Guadalcanal:  Japanese ships only, bombard the enemy airfield and engage enemy surface force in close combat.

Tokyo Express: Japanese destroyers only. Deliver troops and supplies while fighting off enemy PT boats, destroyers, and cruisers.
  

The Battle of Tassafaronga reads like something straight out of wows:

Spoiler

image.thumb.png.b4c64f02a52c7ba058da213530dbcf56.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,124
[ARGSY]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,120 posts
18,633 battles
2 hours ago, Feminist said:

Guadalcanal and Tokyo Express runs would make great scenarios for wows. But they should be limited to Japanese ships for maximum immersion, like how the Dunkirk scenario was limited to UK and French destroyers.

Guadalcanal:  Japanese ships only, bombard the enemy airfield and engage enemy surface force in close combat.

Tokyo Express: Japanese destroyers only. Deliver troops and supplies while fighting off enemy PT boats, destroyers, and cruisers.
  

The Battle of Tassafaronga reads like something straight out of wows:

  Reveal hidden contents

image.thumb.png.b4c64f02a52c7ba058da213530dbcf56.png

 

Well since we don’t have night battles most of Guadalcanal battles are not possible.

Midway would be tricky since with the knowledge how that plays out the IJN player may act different. You can play ofc the USN.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,143 posts
3,273 battles
1 hour ago, Erebthoron said:

Well since we don’t have night battles most of Guadalcanal battles are not possible.

Midway would be tricky since with the knowledge how that plays out the IJN player may act different. You can play ofc the USN.

 

Night battles could happen. Or potentially worked in.. Start the operation "in a Cyclone" making target acquisition early on very difficult. Or adapt the Cyclone mechanic to be a lesser effect for the operation for "night action" so still difficult to spot but added allowance for extended ranges. And once "Daybreak" arrives the cyclone/night effects are over. 

---

Midway being "tricky" because of historical knowledge of battle outcome doesn't necessarily have to come into play. It's about selection of Operations Objectives to achieve the Victory.

From the USN standpoint it could easily be historical; Defend the island from Air Attack and Troop landings, Search and Destroy 75% or more enemy CVs before they Retreat, ensure friendly CVs don't drop below 50%. 

From the IJN standpoint, via alt-history; suppress Island defences, escort X-number of troopships to Island, defend CVs from attacks (don't lose more than 75%), search and destroy enemy CVs, Hold and Defend Island from attack "X" time. 

Anyway, true-history or alt-history, regardless of "side" picked for the Operation's Narrative. From a gameplay standpoint if they go with something of Historical Significance, it should be about achieving the Operational Goals that the Admiralty's Staff and battle planner's set regardless of historical outcome  and "side". If they programed the AI to blindly "A-Move", to use an RTS saying, knowledge of a historical battle would make an operation relatively easy. But if it was designed in such a way that it was only historical from an Objectives point, the AI could potentially do something non-historical and unexpected to the player provided they are still following the AI goals and their pre-programed objectives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42
[-V-]
Members
217 posts
808 battles

WWI Naval blunder at Gallipoli through the Dardanelles.

This was not achieved and ended in disaster. With a little changes, making the campaign possible, it might be fun. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,124
[ARGSY]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,120 posts
18,633 battles
11 minutes ago, Ivlerlin said:

Night battles could happen. Or potentially worked in.. Start the operation "in a Cyclone" making target acquisition early on very difficult. Or adapt the Cyclone mechanic to be a lesser effect for the operation for "night action" so still difficult to spot but added allowance for extended ranges. And once "Daybreak" arrives the cyclone/night effects are over. 

---

Midway being "tricky" because of historical knowledge of battle outcome doesn't necessarily have to come into play. It's about selection of Operations Objectives to achieve the Victory.

From the USN standpoint it could easily be historical; Defend the island from Air Attack and Troop landings, Search and Destroy 75% or more enemy CVs before they Retreat, ensure friendly CVs don't drop below 50%. 

From the IJN standpoint, via alt-history; suppress Island defences, escort X-number of troopships to Island, defend CVs from attacks (don't lose more than 75%), search and destroy enemy CVs, Hold and Defend Island from attack "X" time. 

Anyway, true-history or alt-history, regardless of "side" picked for the Operation's Narrative. From a gameplay standpoint if they go with something of Historical Significance, it should be about achieving the Operational Goals that the Admiralty's Staff and battle planner's set regardless of historical outcome  and "side". If they programed the AI to blindly "A-Move", to use an RTS saying, knowledge of a historical battle would make an operation relatively easy. But if it was designed in such a way that it was only historical from an Objectives point, the AI could potentially do something non-historical and unexpected to the player provided they are still following the AI goals and their pre-programed objectives. 

No, nightbattles need a very different mechanic then cyclones. It’s pitch dark and you can only see ships that are illuminated by starshells or ship lights. 

Even choosing the option to prevent the invasion of Midway is ahistorical. It never happend. And I see no chance to make a believable scenario out of it since that would put you up against most ships of the IJN navy. 

Even Taffy 3 isn’t a option because the hit rate ingame is much higher then it was in reality. You would also have no torpedo reloads. 

As much as people see in those battles some heroic romantic they are hardly playable with the parameters of the game. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
162 posts
3,602 battles
7 hours ago, guns_at_last_light said:

Pacific Theater naval battles would be tough to handle from a marketing perspective, which is probably why operations have so far been mostly made up (Dunkirk aside). The vast majority of Pacific battles were U.S. victories. 

No, many early war Pacific battles were definitely NOT US victories, particularly: 

  • Java Sea
  • Savo Island
  • 1st Guadalcanal
  • Tassafaronga
  • Kula Gulf
  • Vella LaVella

The beauty is that these Ops could be programmed from both sides, but only one side would be live per Op.

The difficulty (as pointed out above) would be handling night time conditions.

Creating Ops with CV is problematic at best due to game scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,124
[ARGSY]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,120 posts
18,633 battles

The problem is that both sides need a fixed setup of ships. Midway: 3 CV player, some cruisers and DD. If people don’t play this class they either didn’t do anything that may needed to be done or just leave the match. Or player can choose the ship but the queue times will be to long. When WoT tried historic scenarios all queued for Tiger tanks but no one for light/mediums. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
162 posts
3,602 battles
5 minutes ago, Erebthoron said:

The problem is that both sides need a fixed setup of ships. Midway: 3 CV player, some cruisers and DD. If people don’t play this class they either didn’t do anything that may needed to be done or just leave the match. Or player can choose the ship but the the queue times will be to long. When WoT tried historic scenarios all queued for Tiger tanks but no one for light/mediums. 

CV battle would be problematic, which is why I wouldn't recommend them at this time.

I remember the problem with WoT, which I why I would recommend only one side is live at a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,143 posts
3,273 battles
13 minutes ago, Erebthoron said:

No, nightbattles need a very different mechanic then cyclones. It’s pitch dark and you can only see ships that are illuminated by starshells or ship lights. 

Even choosing the option to prevent the invasion of Midway is ahistorical. It never happend. And I see no chance to make a believable scenario out of it since that would put you up against most ships of the IJN navy. 

Even Taffy 3 isn’t a option because the hit rate ingame is much higher then it was in reality. You would also have no torpedo reloads. 

As much as people see in those battles some heroic romantic they are hardly playable with the parameters of the game. 

 

There's a slight suspension of disbelief required to make the game functional and fun at the same time. Like the %Hit Rates and the ability to reload torpedoes without disengaging combat and rallying with a supplying ship for resupply and réarmement. Or engaging in combat in a Cyclone at sea... some WW2 DDs were capable of sinking in those conditions nevermind combat. 

Yes, in real night combat, ships engaged eachother with the assistance of star shells and ship board lights. The suggestion of a "Cyclone" effect is because currently in-game it is the only negative factor when it comes to Concealment and Target Acquisition. Thus its an element of "hide-and-seek" something that most people in their adolescence played at night; in the dark. 

If a more realistic mechanism for Night Fights were to occur star shells would be an element that needs to be put in the game. Whereas Cyclone values just need to be tweak to simulate "night" and the issues of poor visibility. The closest in-game mechanic that I can currently think of "easy adaptation" for Star Shells is a 3-way combination of items: Gun Bloom, Concealment Value (base), and Proximity to Target. 

Gun Bloom - a ship blind fires, shot(s) act as Star Shell. All ships within Gun Bloom area become drawn on Mini-map. Effect last for standard Bloom duration. 

Concealment Value (base) - regardless of Gun Bloom effects on Modified Concealment values No Ship can be spotted/acquired/locked-on (drawn) Unless spotted by Proximity and under the effect of "gun bloom" / "starshells" of an opposing player. 

Proximity to Target - a friendly ship Must Be inside a Red ship's spotting range during the Effects and duration of a friendly "star shell" to drawn as an acquireable target. 

Basically, everyone is in smoke until someone blind fires and both sides start engaging provided someone is within close enough proximity to the opponent. 

I'm no programmer, but I don't play the game on a high end gaming computer, and I do know the amounts of processing power for background processing checks will put a high amount of strain on low-end devices. Gun bloom checks, proximity checks, Concealment Value checks, draw X ship on screen for Z player, erase Y ship on screen for Z player. Sure some of these processes already occur. But what happens when it's increased in frequency over a shorter period of time? That's a lot of Ticks per second..

WoWS is free to play, computer processing power and specs potentially will cut ability to play the game on low settings for those with lower end machines. What are they supposed to do? Invest in a new rig because a free to play; pay if you want game doesn't work? Or find something else that runs and play that. 

Sorry, side tracked, so IF you were to insert Night Fighting and star shells into the game as a brainstorming idea should a Dev pop their head in hear what would it be? 

Modifying the current Cyclone Mechanics would be sufficient enough for simulated "night fighting" could more be realism be added? Always. But it depends on how much it will tax the system reqs. 

As for romanticizing historical battles within the parameters of the game that returns to how much suspension of disbelief a player allows to themselves. Any narrative chosen for an operation is solely based the objectives selected for it. Fact or Fiction depends on where they choose to make the players perspective. Do they place the player on the Historical Victor's side of the objectives and the side of "Fact" or do they place the player on the side of Historical Defeat and create "Fiction" when the player achieves the counter objectives.

The arguments over facts or fiction is probably one of the primary reasons why operations aren't overly historical. If it's fictional from start to finish regardless of "side" whatever narrative that occurs is of their choosing because there's no direct historical ties to hurt anyone's feelings over. Remember when the Arizona was first announced and the chatter behind her and her historical significance and current memorial significance?

Anyways, cyclones =/= night fighting, while it would lack realism from a gameplay standpoint it just needs to make minor sense; somethings make no sense at all. Example: The Atlanta has 127/38 mk32 Main Batteries at a Range of 11km, why does the Baltimore or Cleveland's 127/38 mk32 Secondary Batteries have a range of 5km and not the potential range out to 11km? (Not going to argue the 127/38s, it's there for game balance. Otherwise nobody would pick DDs or CACLs, since BBs have cruisers as secondaries likewise Cruisers have DD's)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,124
[ARGSY]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,120 posts
18,633 battles

Still no. If they add night battles I would rather prefer it with a new mechanic then just tweak one that isn’t the same. People ask since beta for this. It’s just very complicated and I’m not sure how most players will react to it since it needs some real skill. I understand that WG didn’t put much effort behind this since you will find 3 pages in the forum on day one that people either want to opt out off night battles or complain about realism. From the rational it’s a waste of resources. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
416 posts
55 minutes ago, Condor66 said:

No, many early war Pacific battles were definitely NOT US victories, particularly: 

  • Java Sea
  • Savo Island
  • 1st Guadalcanal
  • Tassafaronga
  • Kula Gulf
  • Vella LaVella

The beauty is that these Ops could be programmed from both sides, but only one side would be live per Op.

The difficulty (as pointed out above) would be handling night time conditions.

Creating Ops with CV is problematic at best due to game scale.

While I appreciate you pointing out that every Pacific battle wasn't a US victory, most of the battles in this list lack the large ships (i.e. BBs) that WG would probably require in order to make designing an Operation a good use of resources. Could they make an Operation only featuring cruisers and/or destroyers? Sure. But there would be so much complaining that it would be a nightmare.

The technical aspects of designing nighttime battles, while problematic, pale in comparison to the optics of having a recreation of a real life engagement. I have serious doubts that WG wants to handle complaints from players who don't like seeing their country's ships blown to pieces (or not blown to pieces, against what actually happened). It would make much more sense for WG to take a historical battle and strip out the country requirements. Thus any battle involving Guadalcanal would really about guarding troops ships, and wouldn't require IJN or US ships-only.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,143 posts
3,273 battles
3 hours ago, Erebthoron said:

Still no. If they add night battles I would rather prefer it with a new mechanic then just tweak one that isn’t the same. People ask since beta for this. It’s just very complicated and I’m not sure how most players will react to it since it needs some real skill. I understand that WG didn’t put much effort behind this since you will find 3 pages in the forum on day one that people either want to opt out off night battles or complain about realism. From the rational it’s a waste of resources. 

It would depend on the vision of how they would want to balance Game Mechanics VS Immersion.  

Also we are most likely coming from different headings trying to approach the same point in regards to "night fighting". 

The "weak Cyclone debuff" approach with a few minor tweaks and adjustments is an adaptation of a current mechanic is something that could potentially be used in both PvP and PvE since cyclones are already in the game and here to stay. Resources required are already partially in place. 

This New Night Fight mechanic, that requires "real skill" as you mention is a tiny be harder for me to envision. Especially when you reference an older post with back-and-forth of poster saying "if it comes I want an opt-out option". 

There's no mention of what you envision night fighting to be other than Star Shells and Ship board lights, for more elements of Immersion and realism. The mechanisms I'm imagining are something along these lines:

Mini-map only shows location of islands, friendlies, and "shadows" of last spotted location of enemies. 

Game backdrop is very dark, horizon silhouette only shows breaklines between water/sky/landmasses.

Point of Aim is a ship mounted spotlight, narrow field of view, but appears as "daytime" within FoV area. The issue with something like this is How is the Search Light limited? Weapons Range? If so then BB's become massive lighthouses. Also how would CV work into this equation? 

If an arbitrary range is predetermined for the "spot light" it sounds like the range restrictions and debuffs that come with cyclones but a narrowed FoV. 

Ship textures, if the above searchlight is limited by an arbitrary range what about shots beyond searchlight ranges?

During a Cyclone all ships outside the specified radius is invisible. Muzzle Flashes and shells cannot be seen to assist it estimating target position. The only guides available to calculate your shot is you range-finder next to your point of aim near the Time to Target indicator AND you Mini-map where you can try to triangulate target position in relation to your Maximum Range Circles for Main Batteries, Secondaries,  and AA. A static target like an BB hugging a land mass might be an easy "blind" shot but targets behind islands are impossible; without target lock the shells don't lob, they impact on the near side of the island they're hiding behind. 

Going back to ship textures, all ships would need to be re-textured for Bridge Lights, Cabin/hold windows, ect. Yes, "lights out" is the proper way of Night Engagements, BUT a small 5-10% silhouette beyond "search light" ranges is major difference than the effects of Cyclones beyond "draw/detect" ranges. Re-texturing all the current and future ships would put a stain on Development resources. 

Also there's the further question, if a silhouette is within range of your ship's guns and visible, But outside search lights should a ship be allowed to "lock-on" or not and be required to "blind fire" at the area?

Star Shells, the only way they could thing it implemented is the Gun Bloom - Red's Concealment - Proximity mentioned previously, but if it's granted to all ships then "Night Fighting" is only good for the first shot in an engagement and the smaller skirmishes that happen after the primary battle. Sure it could be a consumable choice; but who would take it? What would it replace? Max consumables I've seen are 3 to a ship, is 4 even possible? (Not counting DCP). 

Anyways a pitch dark battlefield, smaller ship silhouettes, blind fire / inability to "lock-on" beyond a certain range (spot light), star shells to allow "lock-on" targets beyond spot lights. 

Is this the style / level of new mechanisms for Night Fights you're envisioning? There's been no mention of implementation ideas. 

----

TL;DR 

to make Night Fighting available to PvE in Operations requires dual purpose and implementation in PvP. And while new mechanics would be fun and everything IF a consumable is required to counter the effects on the Environmental changes, it's like Max speccing AA and running DF with the current rate of CV appearances; a ship's maximum effectiveness through consumables is significantly decreased when the proper scenario does not appear. A ship max spec'ed for AA has the option for CV Divisions whereas a Max spec'ed for Night Fighting (assuming a future cmdr rework with skills to suit) it's still completely unpredictable unless MM and environmental patterns matched accordingly. 

All the historical settings and battle objectives combined with Night Fighting would be great Operations but until they come to a solution where the mechanics they devise as "Night Fight Rules" can be added into the Environmental Effects like the Cyclone and applied to PvP as well as PvE. The great narratives of those battles, and the potential fiction WG could extrapolate from them will be left in the dark. Unless they turn them into day actions. But the elements of surprise from most night actions potentially would be lost. 

It's literally Night and Day between the PvE and PvP communities for games that have both. And unfortunately Dev's cater to the larger player base. So if Night Actions are desired for PvE the must be duality so that efforts developing it is also engaging towards the other side of the community. 

(Yeah the TLDR is still long, but even my small posts trend to be big.. Unless I'm posting dumb comments like "Poi?")

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.

×