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

Alternate camouflages for Boise & Pensacola?

15 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Alpha Tester
1,965 posts

These images were posted two months ago as part of an article on USN camo. It shows Boise and Pensacola wearing paint schemes I've never seen in the game before. I don't know what is WG's reason for omitting these solid colour schemes, but I would love it if we could have them as alternate camo. Personally I've seen enough of the same old boring multi-colour camo found on almost every USN tech tree/premium ship. Makes you wonder how many more paint schemes did they make but chose not to implement?

913eb500-9ca8-11e8-a25b-ac162d8bc1e4.jpg

3f319d56-9cab-11e8-8dba-d89d6715223c.jpg

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,130
[NBGC]
Members
3,043 posts
10,248 battles

Actually, the various dazzle schemes seen on USN ships are quite historically-accurate, based on well-researched data from multiple sources. The only hitch(es) being the main battery turrets and secondary armament (both casemate and turreted), which because of how ships in this game are built, with few exceptions, all use one model and texture to represent all the turrets and mounts. The exceptions are almost exclusively premium ships, and even then, a fair few (mostly older ones) don't have that treatment.

As for why they don't use more solid-color camo schemes (like MS 21 on Boise), take a closer look at the errata on deck and throughout the superstructure (f.ex. life rafts, AA mounts, gun directors, etc.). On every ship in this game, they are all the same basic color as the default scheme, which of course isn't a scheme at all, and you can see it on both ships. On American vessels, for example, the default is a light bluish gray that almost, but doesn't quite, match up with the haze gray seen on most premium camouflages no matter what the scheme. This is readily apparent on the Arizona and Missouri, and in my opinion, the former explains why MS 21 isn't seen more often in the game.

Leaving out the rather ugly Remembrance Night camo, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
219
[VIKES]
[VIKES]
Members
552 posts
12,008 battles
14 minutes ago, Goodwood_Alpha said:

Actually, the various dazzle schemes seen on USN ships are quite historically-accurate, based on well-researched data from multiple sources. The only hitch(es) being the main battery turrets and secondary armament (both casemate and turreted), which because of how ships in this game are built, with few exceptions, all use one model and texture to represent all the turrets and mounts. The exceptions are almost exclusively premium ships, and even then, a fair few (mostly older ones) don't have that treatment.

As for why they don't use more solid-color camo schemes (like MS 21 on Boise), take a closer look at the errata on deck and throughout the superstructure (f.ex. life rafts, AA mounts, gun directors, etc.). On every ship in this game, they are all the same basic color as the default scheme, which of course isn't a scheme at all, and you can see it on both ships. On American vessels, for example, the default is a light bluish gray that almost, but doesn't quite, match up with the haze gray seen on most premium camouflages no matter what the scheme. This is readily apparent on the Arizona and Missouri, and in my opinion, the former explains why MS 21 isn't seen more often in the game.

Leaving out the rather ugly Remembrance Night camo, of course.

You are 99 % correct here, except for one ship the Massachusetts.  Measure 32 (a "dazzle") was proposed for Mamie but never implemented, see the image below from a plaque actually on the USS Massachusetts itself in Battleship Cove, Fall River, MA.  This one ship should have its measure 22 in place.  Other than that one tiny quibble (which clearly triggers me :cap_rambo:) you are completely correct.  Good web site for anyone interested in camos here:  http://www.shipcamouflage.com/index.htm

 

5bb62477f32ad_sigaddition.PNG.47de44f3aaede45350748aff1d4e3b9b.PNG 

Edited by nagasakee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,130
[NBGC]
Members
3,043 posts
10,248 battles
2 minutes ago, nagasakee said:

You are 99 % correct here, except for one ship the Massachusetts.  Measure 32 (a "dazzle") was proposed for Mamie but never implemented, see the image below from a plaque actually on the USS Massachusetts itself in Battleship Cove, Fall River, MA.  This one ship should have its measure 22 in place.  Other than that one tiny quibble (which clearly triggers me :cap_rambo:) you are completely correct.  Good web site for anyone interested in camos here:  http://www.shipcamouflage.com/index.htm

 

5bb62477f32ad_sigaddition.PNG.47de44f3aaede45350748aff1d4e3b9b.PNG 

Heh. :fish_happy:

Well, it's obvious why they went with that scheme, even if Mamie never wore it (the Measure 32 scheme worn by Iowa and Missouri was only ever worn by the latter vessel during her shakedown cruise); it was to distinguish her from Alabama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
219
[VIKES]
[VIKES]
Members
552 posts
12,008 battles

That's true, but they should have given us the option to wear 22.  After all through every single CC video released, that's what she had.  Seems like a last minute, and perhaps poorly thought out decision.  Oh well :)

 

Sorry for kinda derailing your good answer btw :)

Edited by nagasakee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,508
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,497 posts
3,435 battles

The other reason (supposedly) for removal of a number of straight color camouflage and coloration was that it apparently made them much harder to hit on lower-res computers. Thus the removal of the old stock USN Measure 22 on the bare hulls and the shift to making them Camouflage only (Missouri's alternate and the French Cruisers). I could see Boise's darker blue as a possible alternate Camouflage, though they would probably sell it for 500~1000 Doubloons, depending on whether or not it came with extra bonuses (like Eugen) or was just another alternate Camouflage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
219
[VIKES]
[VIKES]
Members
552 posts
12,008 battles
1 hour ago, YamatoA150 said:

The other reason (supposedly) for removal of a number of straight color camouflage and coloration was that it apparently made them much harder to hit on lower-res computers. Thus the removal of the old stock USN Measure 22 on the bare hulls and the shift to making them Camouflage only (Missouri's alternate and the French Cruisers). I could see Boise's darker blue as a possible alternate Camouflage, though they would probably sell it for 500~1000 Doubloons, depending on whether or not it came with extra bonuses (like Eugen) or was just another alternate Camouflage.

You are correct, especially with "removal of a number", but not all of them.   I still have three or four Measure 22's I think, on the Alabama, Missouri, and a couple of cruisers.   You'd think if they removed some for that good logical reason, they'd have done all of them.  Perhaps a time issue?   Anyway I still hope I can get the 22 back again some day.  There is an Ashlain mod for it, but haven't seen it the last two patches for some reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,130
[NBGC]
Members
3,043 posts
10,248 battles
1 hour ago, nagasakee said:

You are correct, especially with "removal of a number", but not all of them.   I still have three or four Measure 22's I think, on the Alabama, Missouri, and a couple of cruisers.   You'd think if they removed some for that good logical reason, they'd have done all of them.  Perhaps a time issue?   Anyway I still hope I can get the 22 back again some day.  There is an Ashlain mod for it, but haven't seen it the last two patches for some reason.

The difference between CBT and when WG reintroduced Measure 22 was the difference in water coloration and weather effects. Even on the starchiest of potato PCs, the different colors of water and sky, and the Navy Blue on that pattern, are different enough to distinguish ship from sea. In point of fact, the Navy Blue on the Arizona and the other ships decked out in MS 22 is too bright, expressly for that reason.

It's why the camouflages were adopted in the first place; they were damn effective!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
219
[VIKES]
[VIKES]
Members
552 posts
12,008 battles
1 hour ago, Goodwood_Alpha said:

It's why the camouflages were adopted in the first place; they were damn effective!

You can't argue with that :cap_win:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,130
[NBGC]
Members
3,043 posts
10,248 battles

Another fun fact about MS 22: the horizontal line demarcation between the Haze Gray and the Navy Blue was actually set at a subtle incline, starting lower at the bow and ending higher at the stern, or else going up toward a point roughly amidships, and then declining again. On the Missouri, for example, that incline is not, in fact, modeled; her bow number should have been entirely within the Haze Gray portion, and not bisected with the upper part of the Navy Blue. Same goes for the Alabama, in fact, though the Kidd does have the proper incline.

Edit: The point of this was, of course, to make it more difficult for surface ships, and especially submarines, to get an accurate bead on a ship's course and speed. Any kind of monkey wrench you can throw into the firing solution is an advantage, since even the most well-designed camouflages will only work out to certain ranges and conditions.

Edited by Goodwood_Alpha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,843
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,166 posts
14,573 battles
7 hours ago, Goodwood_Alpha said:

As for why they don't use more solid-color camo schemes (like MS 21 on Boise), take a closer look at the errata on deck and throughout the superstructure (f.ex. life rafts, AA mounts, gun directors, etc.). On every ship in this game, they are all the same basic color as the default scheme, which of course isn't a scheme at all, and you can see it on both ships. On American vessels, for example, the default is a light bluish gray that almost, but doesn't quite, match up with the haze gray seen on most premium camouflages no matter what the scheme. This is readily apparent on the Arizona and Missouri, and in my opinion, the former explains why MS 21 isn't seen more often in the game.

This is one of the limitations with the game.  There are some great ship texture modders out there with some awesome schemes, but because of the shared parts between different ships in the game, one drastically different mod affects many others as they use the same parts.  A great example are USN 127mm guns.  One scheme on a North Carolina mod that looks great, will make Iowa / Missouri / Alabama look wrong if they do not use the same camo style because they all use the same 127mm textures.  You can't use mods from different authors for different ships that have common components because they will look wrong.  It's the reason why I stopped using ship texture mods because of the clashes.  Hell, it will even affect the other USN Cruisers because the newer ones like Cleveland, Baltimore, etc. use the same 127mm DP guns.  I understand why WG did this, but it's one of the limitations we just have to deal with.

 

lGPPyNZ.jpg

Looks fine, but if your other USN ships don't use this same camo, the common components like the AA guns, 127mm DP guns, etc. will make all other USN ships that use these same parts look off.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,130
[NBGC]
Members
3,043 posts
10,248 battles
3 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

This is one of the limitations with the game.  There are some great ship texture modders out there with some awesome schemes, but because of the shared parts between different ships in the game, one drastically different mod affects many others as they use the same parts.  A great example are USN 127mm guns.  One scheme on a North Carolina mod that looks great, will make Iowa / Missouri / Alabama look wrong if they do not use the same camo style because they all use the same 127mm textures.  You can't use mods from different authors for different ships that have common components because they will look wrong.  I understand why WG did this, but it's one of the limitations we just have to deal with.

Yep, and it's one of the first things I noticed about the various ships when I first started playing the game back in OBT,, which is another fun aspect of having experience as a texture artist. Well, that and the fact that they were way too damn rusty!

This is, ultimately, a limitation that WG have imposed upon themselves, because having as many such components being modular means they can save that much more on development costs, and especially man-hours. It's why we don't see the necessary corrections to erroneous models like the Tirpitz, which has major and long-standing issues, and the Arizona, which has long been known to have had a natural teak deck at the time of her sinking, though she was supposed to have had them painted during a cancelled October refit in the States (WeeVee's had in fact been painted Navy Blue not long before the attack, something I got wrong in my criticisms of WG's decision to make her "WeeVee '41"—Maryland did have an unpainted deck, though). The cost to make them cannot be easily recouped, and they don't seem inclined to accept third-party corrections, even if they are only to the skins—they certainly won't want to trust any outside sources when it comes to their 3D models, for obvious reasons.

This is the same reason why we won't be seeing any revamps of the 3D models and textures for the American and Japanese ships from Alpha and CBT. At this point, I'm fairly certain that the only way we might is if WG were to eventually decide to go with a new game engine for WoWS, like they have done for WoT, but even then they will probably want to be able to use the same basic vehicle and module models as much as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
868
[ICE9]
Members
836 posts
8 hours ago, Wolcott said:

These images were posted two months ago as part of an article on USN camo. It shows Boise and Pensacola wearing paint schemes I've never seen in the game before. I don't know what is WG's reason for omitting these solid colour schemes, but I would love it if we could have them as alternate camo. Personally I've seen enough of the same old boring multi-colour camo found on almost every USN tech tree/premium ship. Makes you wonder how many more paint schemes did they make but chose not to implement?

913eb500-9ca8-11e8-a25b-ac162d8bc1e4.jpg

3f319d56-9cab-11e8-8dba-d89d6715223c.jpg

This is BuShips Measure 1. It was the standard in 1941, and is what you see on the Arizona in WOWS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,068
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,186 posts
11,702 battles
8 hours ago, Wolcott said:

These images were posted two months ago as part of an article on USN camo. It shows Boise and Pensacola wearing paint schemes I've never seen in the game before. I don't know what is WG's reason for omitting these solid colour schemes, but I would love it if we could have them as alternate camo. Personally I've seen enough of the same old boring multi-colour camo found on almost every USN tech tree/premium ship. Makes you wonder how many more paint schemes did they make but chose not to implement?

913eb500-9ca8-11e8-a25b-ac162d8bc1e4.jpg

3f319d56-9cab-11e8-8dba-d89d6715223c.jpg

The top image is actually the Helena.  I'm not sure why they labelled it as the Boise.  The bottom image is based on a 1941 version of the Salt Lake City, although it's incorrect.  That's no shocker really, as the in-game model is the Salt Lake City, not the Pensacola.

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.

×