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

Why can not we just have real-historical camos?

20 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

7
[IRISH]
Members
21 posts

Ok so i was one of those players expecting Tirpitz to have some of his plenty of historical camos. Now Im seeing that it has a new one resembling a ground alike that the real one had, but badly made and with wrong colors(different grades of gray instead of green and brown like it really was). Same with scharnhorst, while cool, it never existed and even the snowy should be having the wavy camo faintly seen under it, that it had on its last journey. Also other models like z23 having a wrong premium one.  Why this lack of detail?

Now, talking about the z23 as an example, there is anniversary  camo with more XP and considerations than the premium doubloon-paid . Thing is, i know this is an arcade game and most players dont care about having a manga captain, clownish and childish camos, planes flying on cyclones, radars waving through ground, lack of short-underwater hits, fantasy fire ignition and disproportionate dmg, antigerman bias, OP US BBs, never bouncing US shells (like german ones, US chells and even the SH were good at penetrating at 60° angle...but damn), ships that never had radars equipped with, etc. But for some of us, who have been for years in serious forums about battleships and in between archives of the real stuff, would be awesome if we can apply certain camo or use the given bonus ones,  but choosing to see another one like the premium or a serious one instead a colorful. I know i can install mods but considering im paying into this game, it´ll be a nice feature to count with that possibility.

Cheers to all

Sebastian.

 

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
133
[NAUT]
[NAUT]
Beta Testers
918 posts
6,255 battles

Which ships in game have radar where the real one did not? Just curious here... Virtually all ships had radar by the mid 40's. 

I'm kinda with you on the camo I guess. I just like the stats of all the various ones. Solution: Be able to mount any camo statwise, but make the camo not visible. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
522
[LOU1]
Members
3,174 posts
8,432 battles

One thing to keep in mind is that even though it has been over half a century, use of some ships and/or Camos is still restricted by their owners.  If you listen to the Developer’s video, even one of the Russian ship’s blueprints are still restricted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
146
[BLHK]
Members
474 posts
3,673 battles
8 minutes ago, ExploratorOne said:

One thing to keep in mind is that even though it has been over half a century, use of some ships and/or Camos is still restricted by their owners.  If you listen to the Developer’s video, even one of the Russian ship’s blueprints are still restricted.

I believe the below water hull design of the US Missouri was restricted information well into the 1980s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
522
[LOU1]
Members
3,174 posts
8,432 battles
2 minutes ago, MG1962 said:

I believe the below water hull design of the US Missouri was restricted information well into the 1980s

Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
373
[CUTER]
[CUTER]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,656 posts
9,233 battles

The RN BBs took so long to get put in because WG couldn’t get the plans from the RN. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39
[BEARS]
[BEARS]
Beta Testers
195 posts
5,619 battles
40 minutes ago, TheBlackWind said:

 Solution: Be able to mount any camo statwise, but make the camo not visible. 

This.

Some of the designs are really crap for immersion in game.   I know its a game, its not even a sim, being more of an arcade game.   But for the life of me, I cannot stand driving a spaceship that looks like a hybrid watercraft or some dumb-assed design like the sharks or eagles for the Worcester.  Doesn't even look like a ship...more like a Yule log with pretzels poked in it.

I suspect most of us select our camo's based on availability and primarily for stat bonus best suited for a particular captain or other need.

Let me select the visual, give me the options on the stat.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,518
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,536 posts
3,588 battles
1 minute ago, Kraayt said:

This.

Some of the designs are really crap for immersion in game.   I know its a game, its not even a sim, being more of an arcade game.   But for the life of me, I cannot stand driving a spaceship that looks like a hybrid watercraft or some dumb-assed design like the sharks or eagles for the Worcester.  Doesn't even look like a ship...more like a Yule log with pretzels poked in it.

I suspect most of us select our camo's based on availability and primarily for stat bonus best suited for a particular captain or other need.

Let me select the visual, give me the options on the stat.

WG already settled this when the Kobayashi Camouflage came out. Use it, visual + bonuses, or don't, and no visuals but also no bonuses. It's been the same general reply every time this had been brought up on Reddit.

Outside of that, the only consolation is that they still let players mod the visual files, which most have resorted to doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
223 posts
16,410 battles

Historical camos are used in war for a reason. 

They are meant to be combat effective not to be pretty.

There arent as much historical camos on ships for the same reason why you dont see armor vehicle camos on cars today.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
27 posts
2,517 battles
27 minutes ago, ExploratorOne said:

Interesting.

That might explain why the models of the Iowa class that I built in the 80s had such a weird, flat bottom!

To your other point, I have only been playing for a short while, and I love this game, but I have also wondered if there is a possibility of a sim-style, realistic game being built on the foundations of WoW. I'm thinking underwater pens, full-range secondaries, radar, the ability to independently control turrets to engage multiple targets, crew fatalities/casualties that affect your ships ability to operate, etc. Kind of a hardcore mode 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,647
[DAKI]
[DAKI]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
12,846 posts
4,814 battles
3 minutes ago, Call_of_the_Mastodon said:

That might explain why the models of the Iowa class that I built in the 80s had such a weird, flat bottom!

To your other point, I have only been playing for a short while, and I love this game, but I have also wondered if there is a possibility of a sim-style, realistic game being built on the foundations of WoW. I'm thinking underwater pens, full-range secondaries, radar, the ability to independently control turrets to engage multiple targets, crew fatalities/casualties that affect your ships ability to operate, etc. Kind of a hardcore mode 

Nope, not happening. WoWs was built from the ground up to be an arcade game that a casual can pick up, not a simulator for a 'hardcore' niche market.

Besides, they already tried a more realistic approach during alpha testing, and it did not make for balanced gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
351
[TDD]
Members
927 posts
8,066 battles
1 hour ago, derzwerge said:

Thing is, i know this is an arcade game

Cheers to all

Sebastian.

 

look you answered your own question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
106
[SOB]
[SOB]
Members
254 posts
4,024 battles
16 minutes ago, Call_of_the_Mastodon said:

I have also wondered if there is a possibility of a sim-style, realistic game being built on the foundations of WoW. I'm thinking underwater pens, full-range secondaries, radar, the ability to independently control turrets to engage multiple targets, crew fatalities/casualties that affect your ships ability to operate, etc. Kind of a hardcore mode 

When pigs fly... Or whatever the Russian equivalent of the colloquialism is. 

+1 to the OP since hes farming the down votes. I have given up all hope of having anything more realistic than a resemblance. I too would like to see historical paint schemes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
146
[BLHK]
Members
474 posts
3,673 battles
32 minutes ago, Call_of_the_Mastodon said:

That might explain why the models of the Iowa class that I built in the 80s had such a weird, flat bottom!

 

That's exactly the reason. Revell tried for years to get the hull shape from the navy. And to this day they have kept that same weird molding on the hull even though now the information is available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
349
[WOLF2]
Members
1,592 posts
13,627 battles
48 minutes ago, DoIphin_Princess said:

Historical camos are used in war for a reason. 

They are meant to be combat effective not to be pretty.

There arent as much historical camos on ships for the same reason why you dont see armor vehicle camos on cars today.

Yeah, too much reality might be too predictable and make the game less interesting/harder to market.

Tell any graphic artist he can't use all the colors on his palette and he'll do it just to piss you off and quit

Yes it gets a little crazy but they have all these tools to play with - let them experiment, turn it off if you don't like it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51
[POP]
Members
301 posts
5,117 battles

It would not bother me if they ADDED historic camos to those they already have. I just wonder if they feel that the demand is enough to offset the cost of making them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3
[D_DOG]
Members
5 posts
5,495 battles

I have noted several comments on here about there not being many true historical camos on here.  Well there are more than you think.  Within the different camos that have been introduced and the basic "Type" camos there are several that are real and have been used in the past.  Why most don't see this is that many of these were used during WW I, and were listed under the category of 'Dazzle" color schemes.  Also several of these color schemes were used primarily on merchant vessels or escorts, not major warships.  Then you have the issue that there were several 'one off' patterns that were only used on single vessels.  You also have the issue that most of the camo patterns of the game can be used on any vessel of any Navy.  During WW I the USN and the British RN developed and used more than fifty (50) different Dazzle patterns and color patterns, many done by individual shipyards both in the US and England and not by the respective navies themselves.  I'm no naval historian, but in my own research I have identified over thirty (30) different camo patterns from the First World War alone.  You also have the fact that several of the 'Dazzle" patterns were brought back and were modified (adjustment of pattern for different ships and different colors) for use in WW II to combat the U-Boat threat.  A good case in point is the 'Halloween' pattern.  This is very similar to a pattern that was used during WW I on surface combatants and then was brought back during WW II and used on troop transports in the Atlantic.  Also think about the fact that there were also dozens of 'field modification' patterns that were applied by forward area facilities and repair ships.  The US Navy for one had a couple of forward area ship repair/anchorages throughout the Pacific that would paint the ships with locally developed patterns.

Don't rely on official sources for what are 'Historic' camo patterns but look at the old photos from the era, you just might find some interesting stuff.

Edited by XLAAD_Jarhead
addition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,042 posts
1,915 battles

I would be partial to new historical camos. I really hate some of the more "artistic license" ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×