Jump to content
Kelorn

Question of the Week Submissions

45 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[IJN]
Members
241 posts
10,231 battles

Hey, the Warships Podcast this is a question I proposed to Suboctaivn and his Q&A Reddit post. However, I would like to know what your opinion of the question is.

To Suboctavin,

First off, I want to thank you for taking time to answer questions from the community. I love it when a game company engages with the community. My question is a bit lengthy. Since the tier 9 German Battleship the Friedrich der Grobe is clearly based off the H-39 class battleships is there any plan to rename the ship to what they were going to be called? The two names that very going to be given to the two H-39’s that were laid down was Ulrich von Hutten and Goetz von Berlichingen? These two names are what Hitler would give the ships if they were actually completed because just like the Deutschland, he feared any loss of a capital ship named after Germany or the German command. This is well documented in Hitler’s Table Talk (1941-1944) with an introductory essay on the mind of Adolf Hitler by H. R. Trevor-Roper. On pages 249-250 it reads: 

4th July 1942, at dinner 

 

Two men in advance of their time — Naming battleships

I think it is very astonishing that men like Ulrich von 
Hutten and Goetz von Berlichingen should have been so far in 
advance of their times and so Progressive in their ideas, and it is 
a great pity that they had behind them in their struggle no 
strong and concrete doctrine, which would have given them 
the necessary moral elan and perseverance. Their completely 
German Outlook nevertheless entitles them to a high place in 
the esteem of the German people. I have for this reason 
suggested that battleships or other large warships at present 
under construction should be named after them. 
 
I rejected the suggestion that a battleship should be named
after myself, because if such a ship has bad luck, the super- 
stitious would regard it as an unfavorable omen for my own 
activities. Imagine a battleship named after me having to 
spend six months in dry dock for repairs! Look, for example, at 
the very harmful effect the announcement of the destruction of 
Fort Stalin at Sebastopol had on Russian morale. 
 
In a State which is founded on a concrete political philosophy, 
prudence must be exercised in the naming of warships. October 
Revolution, Marat, the Commune of Pariš in the Soviet Navy is an 
example of what I mean. I have therefore ordered that the 
battle cruiser Deutschland should be re-named, for the loss of a 
ship of that name would cause greater consternation than the 
loss of any other ship. For the same reason I will not allow the 
names of any one associated with the National Socialist move- 
ment or philosophy to be used for any warships. After a man 
like Goetz von Berlichingen, on the other hand, you can name 
as many ships as you like; for such is his popularity among the 
people that even if any number of ships bearing his name were 
successively sunk, the christening of a new one with the same 
name will always be greeted with applause.

Also, on page 322 it states: 

19th June 1943, at table
Big battleships — The infantry of the seas. 
 
Formerly I planned to construct the most powerful squadron 
of battleships in the world, and intended to name the two 
mightiest of them the Ulrich von Hutten and the Goetz von 
Berlichingen. I am now very pleased that I abandoned the idea. 
For, if we had such a squadron, we should be under a moral 
obligation to use it. Of what practical assistance could such a 
squadron be to-day? It would be condemned to playing the 
part of "the last of the knights in armour". 
 
Evolution these days has been so swift that it is now the in- 
fantry of the sea which assumes the prime importance. Apart 
from submarines, our greatest need is for little ships — powerful 
corvettes, destroyers and the like — these are the classes that 
carry on the fight. 
 
The Japanese to-day possess the most powerful fleet of 
battleships in the world, but it is very difficult to use them in 
action. For them, the greatest danger comes from the air. 
Remember the Bismarck.

Now even though both ships were scraped before 1942 if they remained in construction by the time, they were commissioned it would have been 1943.

 

A smaller question is Wargaming ever going to look at implementing German aircraft carriers? There are enough designs for it. If you can only answer one question, please answer the first one.

Thank you for your time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
168
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
383 posts
4,912 battles
On 5/18/2019 at 1:41 AM, dawggunner said:

@Kelorn @Vanessaira @Aerroon What is y'alls opinions of the Italian ships we currently have and what  other Regia Marina ships might you like to see? Just an Italian bump ;)

See if we can get this in this week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[COOLI]
Members
78 posts
6,952 battles

@Vanessaira  THANK YOU! i caught the cast last night while packing for a trip and I started cheering when i heard your answers and the news of the Italian line!!! I've been waiting for that news for a while and the fact that i heard it from you guys was really nice. Keep up the good work, i look forward to every new episode!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1
[CVRME]
Members
3 posts
3,408 battles

With the Georgia, Massachusetts, and German BB lines, what do you think of adding a Secondary booster consumable to the game.  There is some flexibility with a secondary consumable that can be tailored to the country’s.  For instance, give the US a 20% buff to secondary range, Germans can get a 20% buff to secondary reload, Russians (or some other country) can get a 20% buff to accuracy.  It would promote more aggression as well as give a tool for national flavor within the game.  Secondaries tend to be more situational than other enhancements so it is not going to make these ships grossly OP.  What do you think.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IJN]
Members
241 posts
10,231 battles

To the Warships Podcast i.e. @Kelorn @Vanessaira @Aerroon

 

I have been a fan of the podcast for some time, and I was excited when you started to answer fan’s questions through the NA Forums. I have a deep passion for naval history and I am studying for a history degree specializing in the development of Battleships, and I prefer historical accuracy as much is possible. I asked this question a few weeks ago but didn’t hear a reply, so I would like to ask it again. The question is a bit lengthy. 

 

Since the tier 9 German Battleship the Friedrich der Grobe is clearly based off the H-39 class battleship, should Wargaming rename her to one of the names that was actual designated to the H-39’s? The two names that were going to be given to the two H-39’s that were laid down was Ulrich von Hutten and Goetz von Berlichingen. These two names are what Hitler would have given the ships if they were actually completed, because just like the Deutschland, he feared any loss of a capital ship named after Germany or the German command. This is well documented in the book “Hitler’s Table Talk (1941-1944)” with an introductory essay on the mind of Adolf Hitler by H. R. Trevor-Roper. On pages 249-250 it reads: 

4th July 1942, at dinner 

 

Two men in advance of their time — Naming battleships

I think it is very astonishing that men like Ulrich von 
Hutten and Goetz von Berlichingen should have been so far in 
advance of their times and so Progressive in their ideas, and it is 
a great pity that they had behind them in their struggle no 
strong and concrete doctrine, which would have given them 
the necessary moral elan and perseverance. Their completely 
German Outlook nevertheless entitles them to a high place in 
the esteem of the German people. I have for this reason 
suggested that battleships or other large warships at present 
under construction should be named after them. 
 
I rejected the suggestion that a battleship should be named
after myself, because if such a ship has bad luck, the super- 
stitious would regard it as an unfavorable omen for my own 
activities. Imagine a battleship named after me having to 
spend six months in dry dock for repairs! Look, for example, at 
the very harmful effect the announcement of the destruction of 
Fort Stalin at Sebastopol had on Russian morale. 
 
In a State which is founded on a concrete political philosophy, 
prudence must be exercised in the naming of warships. October 
Revolution, Marat, the Commune of Pariš in the Soviet Navy is an 
example of what I mean. I have therefore ordered that the 
battle cruiser Deutschland should be re-named, for the loss of a 
ship of that name would cause greater consternation than the 
loss of any other ship. For the same reason I will not allow the 
names of any one associated with the National Socialist move- 
ment or philosophy to be used for any warships. After a man 
like Goetz von Berlichingen, on the other hand, you can name 
as many ships as you like; for such is his popularity among the 
people that even if any number of ships bearing his name were 
successively sunk, the christening of a new one with the same 
name will always be greeted with applause.

Also, on page 322 it states: 

19th June 1943, at table
Big battleships — The infantry of the seas. 
 
Formerly I planned to construct the most powerful squadron 
of battleships in the world, and intended to name the two 
mightiest of them the Ulrich von Hutten and the Goetz von 
Berlichingen. I am now very pleased that I abandoned the idea. 
For, if we had such a squadron, we should be under a moral 
obligation to use it. Of what practical assistance could such a 
squadron be to-day? It would be condemned to playing the 
part of "the last of the knights in armour". 
 
Evolution these days has been so swift that it is now the in- 
fantry of the sea which assumes the prime importance. Apart 
from submarines, our greatest need is for little ships — powerful 
corvettes, destroyers and the like — these are the classes that 
carry on the fight. 
 
The Japanese to-day possess the most powerful fleet of 
battleships in the world, but it is very difficult to use them in 
action. For them, the greatest danger comes from the air. 
Remember the Bismarck.

Now even though both ships were scraped before 1942 if they remained in construction by the time, they were commissioned it would have been 1943 thus being christened with those two names.

What is your opinion?

Also, is there any chance you can bring back the intro theme you used when KamiSamurai was a mainstay? The old theme really fit the aesthetic of a podcast about warships. And Aerroon you aren’t blamed for this change.

Thank you for taking time to answer my question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
209
[-K-]
Retired WoWS Community Contributors
317 posts
6,655 battles
On 6/6/2019 at 4:01 AM, IJN_Yamato_BB17 said:

To the Warships Podcast i.e. @Kelorn @Vanessaira @Aerroon

 

I have been a fan of the podcast for some time, and I was excited when you started to answer fan’s questions through the NA Forums. I have a deep passion for naval history and I am studying for a history degree specializing in the development of Battleships, and I prefer historical accuracy as much is possible. I asked this question a few weeks ago but didn’t hear a reply, so I would like to ask it again. The question is a bit lengthy. 

 

Since the tier 9 German Battleship the Friedrich der Grobe is clearly based off the H-39 class battleship, should Wargaming rename her to one of the names that was actual designated to the H-39’s? The two names that were going to be given to the two H-39’s that were laid down was Ulrich von Hutten and Goetz von Berlichingen. These two names are what Hitler would have given the ships if they were actually completed, because just like the Deutschland, he feared any loss of a capital ship named after Germany or the German command. This is well documented in the book “Hitler’s Table Talk (1941-1944)” with an introductory essay on the mind of Adolf Hitler by H. R. Trevor-Roper. On pages 249-250 it reads: 

4th July 1942, at dinner 

 

Two men in advance of their time — Naming battleships


I think it is very astonishing that men like Ulrich von 

Hutten and Goetz von Berlichingen should have been so far in 

advance of their times and so Progressive in their ideas, and it is 

a great pity that they had behind them in their struggle no 

strong and concrete doctrine, which would have given them 

the necessary moral elan and perseverance. Their completely 

German Outlook nevertheless entitles them to a high place in 

the esteem of the German people. I have for this reason 

suggested that battleships or other large warships at present 

under construction should be named after them. 

 

I rejected the suggestion that a battleship should be named

after myself, because if such a ship has bad luck, the super- 

stitious would regard it as an unfavorable omen for my own 

activities. Imagine a battleship named after me having to 

spend six months in dry dock for repairs! Look, for example, at 

the very harmful effect the announcement of the destruction of 

Fort Stalin at Sebastopol had on Russian morale. 

 

In a State which is founded on a concrete political philosophy, 

prudence must be exercised in the naming of warships. October 

Revolution, Marat, the Commune of Pariš in the Soviet Navy is an 

example of what I mean. I have therefore ordered that the 

battle cruiser Deutschland should be re-named, for the loss of a 

ship of that name would cause greater consternation than the 

loss of any other ship. For the same reason I will not allow the 

names of any one associated with the National Socialist move- 

ment or philosophy to be used for any warships. After a man 

like Goetz von Berlichingen, on the other hand, you can name 

as many ships as you like; for such is his popularity among the 

people that even if any number of ships bearing his name were 

successively sunk, the christening of a new one with the same 

name will always be greeted with applause.

Also, on page 322 it states: 


19th June 1943, at table

Big battleships — The infantry of the seas. 

 

Formerly I planned to construct the most powerful squadron 

of battleships in the world, and intended to name the two 

mightiest of them the Ulrich von Hutten and the Goetz von 

Berlichingen. I am now very pleased that I abandoned the idea. 

For, if we had such a squadron, we should be under a moral 

obligation to use it. Of what practical assistance could such a 

squadron be to-day? It would be condemned to playing the 

part of "the last of the knights in armour". 

 

Evolution these days has been so swift that it is now the in- 

fantry of the sea which assumes the prime importance. Apart 

from submarines, our greatest need is for little ships — powerful 

corvettes, destroyers and the like — these are the classes that 

carry on the fight. 

 

The Japanese to-day possess the most powerful fleet of 

battleships in the world, but it is very difficult to use them in 

action. For them, the greatest danger comes from the air. 

Remember the Bismarck.

Now even though both ships were scraped before 1942 if they remained in construction by the time, they were commissioned it would have been 1943 thus being christened with those two names.

What is your opinion?

Also, is there any chance you can bring back the intro theme you used when KamiSamurai was a mainstay? The old theme really fit the aesthetic of a podcast about warships. And Aerroon you aren’t blamed for this change.

Thank you for taking time to answer my question. 

This is a super long questioN! but i'll see what i can do

 

As for the old intro, the gentleman who made it doesn't do them anymore... So i couldn't update it for Aerroon!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
274
[WOLFX]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
901 posts
2,567 battles

As I was listening to this weeks podcast, in particular the section on ship choices for tier 7 ranked, you mentioned Boisie. I always thought she was just a Helena clone that was premium, but apparently there are significant differences in how they play based on their consumables.

Could you compare the two and explain the advantages one has over another?

I may consider buying Boisie as Helena is my favortie ship to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
209
[-K-]
Retired WoWS Community Contributors
317 posts
6,655 battles
On 6/17/2019 at 6:39 AM, dechion said:

As I was listening to this weeks podcast, in particular the section on ship choices for tier 7 ranked, you mentioned Boisie. I always thought she was just a Helena clone that was premium, but apparently there are significant differences in how they play based on their consumables.

Could you compare the two and explain the advantages one has over another?

I may consider buying Boisie as Helena is my favortie ship to play.

We'll definitely answer this one this week!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
790
[-K-]
WoWS Wiki Editor, WoWS Community Contributors
2,243 posts
10,038 battles
2 hours ago, Kelorn said:

We'll definitely answer this one this week!

It's a good question, there are some significant differences between the two ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1
[CVRME]
Members
3 posts
3,408 battles

NoZoup brought up a good point about WG pushing high tiers.  What do you think about allowing captains to be transferred to your elite tech tree ships without having to retrain so they act like when you transfer to a premium ship.  This will allow you to play lower tier ships you already played through without having unskilled captains or trying to retrain a captain for just a couple of games.  It would also allow you to have several captains with different builds you can test out on ships without the cost of retraining to see if a AA build or a survivability build works better. I would play more mid tiers if captains could be transferred to my elite ships I already trained the captains on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
274
[WOLFX]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
901 posts
2,567 battles
13 hours ago, Wild_Lee_Coyote said:

What do you think about allowing captains to be transferred to your elite tech tree ships without having to retrain so they act like when you transfer to a premium ship. 

While i like the idea personally, i doubt WG wpuld ever do this.

All of the services you mentioned are ones that we currently pay dabloons to do, and dabloons are where they make a good chunk of their money.

The closest i could see them actually doing is making it possible to buy premium status for tech tree ships with real world money, and even then it would have to cost about what a premium ship of that tier would cost to avoid destroying the in game economy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1
[CVRME]
Members
3 posts
3,408 battles

With rank ending and the great debate of save a star. What if at the end of the battle you could vote on who on the losing team did the most and that person saves the star?  You could make it so the winning team could also vote. This way the Conqueror in the back doesn’t save a star, but the DD that snuck a double cap under a hail of shots to win the game does.  You can even make it so that if you get say 5 votes then you still save it even if someone else gets 7 since both have contributed. Hell you can even grant a star if say 10 vote for you for exceptional gameplay.  An algorithm can’t really say who contributed the most, but players can.le the players one on who saves a star.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20
[Y0L0]
Members
221 posts
8,887 battles

Not sure if the same person can ask a question again but here goes. 

With the inclusion of a dd like the Friesland in the game, there seems to be an effort by WG to provide a way to defend dds from cvs and perhaps let them venture into caps where they have not (safely) been able to go lately. Is this a step in the right direction in terms of smoothing out the current meta and giving dds a helping hand? Is an entire line of "support" dds warranted in the game? 

Going further down this rabbit hole, with submarines on the the docket for inclusion in the near future, could you see subs perhaps taking away some of the capping and spotting load that dds are struggling to carry right now? I imagine that cvs wouldn't be able to affect them while they are submerged. 

Thanks again for the podcast! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
274
[WOLFX]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
901 posts
2,567 battles

This isn't so much a question as it is suggestion of something you may want to bring up on the show.

With the Rogue Wave event came several themed 10 point commanders that can be purchased in the Armory for 4 million credits each. 

You are able to have duplicates of these commanders.

Not huge news for old salts with lots of high point commanders already, but definitely something that will help out players without a large stable of captains.

Also, might be good to mention that a good way to dig up extra credits is to sell off old unused stock modules and/or consumables you don't use that you may have hanging about.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
93
[FML]
Members
236 posts
15,367 battles

Here are a few suggestions on how to get players to play mid tier ships more often. 

1. Actually have events that require tier 5-7 ships to be used.

2. Stop offering ways to not have to play those tiers every time a new ship line comes out. 

3. re-work matchmaker so that it groups players in the following tier groups:  3-4, 5-7, 8-9, 10.  The reasoning behind this is that t10 ships being the top level ships should be fighting each other. This keeps the playing field level as far as the power of each ship. Each bracket also has the added benefit of having the same number of upgrade slots. This ensures that T8 ships which have access to upgrades that t7 ships do not are not able to prey upon those without access to it. This is similar to how t8 ships will not be less useful in t10 games. T5-7 bracket will have the largest power disparity but not overwhelmingly so as all ships have access to the same upgrades (with few exceptions). This might be a way to make the matches more even in terms of players feeling that no matter what ship they play, they will be able to contribute in a role that doesn't make them cannon fodder.

4. Stop charging for port slots.  I think if people were able to keep their ships in port without having to sell them off in order to make port space, they would be more likely to play what they have already researched and kept in port rather than having to sell off ships in order to make space for new ships. Variety being the spice of life, this offers more options for each player to play the game at multiple tiers and doesn't force them to have to pick and choose what to keep and what to discard. 

5. Instead of having to sell off a line of ships in order to get whatever perks are available from the NTC. Why not have an option to deactivate a ship line and then have to re-grind it that way if they so choose? it accomplishes the same thing without, again, forcing a player to have to regrind AND repurchase the ships.  The current idea behind the NTC illustrates that the developers have a limited relationship with the game at the player level. If they did, they might think twice about wanting to re-grind ship lines over and over again on the same maps until they have done each line three times. 
6. Recalculate the formula by which free xp is calculated. If it is easy to get enough free xp to get past an entire level either by converting for doubloons or just by using tons of flags and camos, then maybe that aspect of the game isn't challenging enough.

What do you think guys? I listen to your podcast religiously every weekend while I am at work. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20
[Y0L0]
Members
221 posts
8,887 battles

Thanks for the recent podcasts you guys! It makes my commute to work a breeze on the days when a new podcast drops. 

I think many people who play wows are drawn to the game because of the historical intrigue it offers that you can't really find in other games. These ships that we drive around were quite the sight to behold, the pride and joy of entire nations, and great battles with lasting historical consequences happened in these ships. The fact that the Bismarck is still one of the most played ships in the game really emphasizes this point. I have 3 questions related to this topic of wows gameplay. 

1: Any ideas on how to add something into the game to feed this secret inner history nerd we all have buried somewhere? 

2: With the changes made to the torpedo flood time a little while ago, is a return of the Kitakame feasibly on the horizon? Watching videos of this ship on youtube was what originally got me into wows back in 2015, so from a nostalgia and history of this game perspective I would be super stoked for this ship to sail the pixel seas again. 

3: Given that so many of the great naval battles from history were conducted on the high seas, Ocean map holds a special place in my heart if for nothing else than the historical nostalgia. I propose that WG bring Ocean map back at a higher frequency in map rotation and add a mechanic on where bot planes will fly over the map and periodically drop symmetrical smoke screens for ships, giving some ships that typically rely on island cover a substitute for the islands. What are your guys thoughts on this change and do you have any other suggestions for improving this map? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
274
[WOLFX]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
901 posts
2,567 battles

As I listened to the section of this weeks podcast talking about different strategies to get players to play other tiers I had an idea.

What if each day of the week a different tier of ship, tier 4 thru 10, recieved a bonus to first win XP?

Its normally 50%. Maybe on "tier 5 Tuesday" all tier 5 ships get 100% first win? Or maybe they get the normal 50% twice?

Something like that could steer players to a certain tier without coming across as too heavy handed, and more importantly not penalise players who choose to go about their buisness and ignore it.

What are your thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1
[JASH]
Members
4 posts
8,185 battles

Hi all, love the show.

 

My question is this: I have enough steel for EITHER the Bourgogne or the Stalingrad and am wondering what your choice would be? I'm not a CB player and I find ranked is not worth the time, energy or necessary salt absorption past rank 10-ish.

I play 99% of my randoms solo, so I'm thinking for me the Bourgogne is probably better than Stalingrad, but....the Somers kinda' changes that equation too so should I hold off for something in the future? <--I think I know Vanessaira's answer to this one :)

Edited by _WifeAggro_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
168
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
383 posts
4,912 battles
On 8/13/2019 at 7:08 PM, _WifeAggro_ said:

Hi all, love the show.

 

My question is this: I have enough steel for EITHER the Bourgogne or the Stalingrad and am wondering what your choice would be? I'm not a CB player and I find ranked is not worth the time, energy or necessary salt absorption past rank 10-ish.

I play 99% of my randoms solo, so I'm thinking for me the Bourgogne is probably better than Stalingrad, but....the Somers kinda' changes that equation too so should I hold off for something in the future? <--I think I know Vanessaira's answer to this one :)

Thank you for your question.   I will get it in our next recording.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×