Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
kgh52

It happened 77 years ago

70 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

693
[TDRB]
Members
2,545 posts
7,337 battles

May 4-8 of 1942 saw a drastic change in naval warfare with the Battle of Coral Sea. This is the 1st time a naval battle where the opposing ships did not see each other. Yes, there was Taranto & Pearl Harbor before Coral Sea but these were attack on ships in port, which are much easier to hit & much easier to sink. In 1942 the military outcome out of the battle weighted the fact that battleships and heavy cruisers were now obsolete as front line naval power and negated to floating AA barges & offshore artillery platforms.

I bring this up for 2 reasons. One, it is historical and the anniversary of this battle is over the weekend. The other is to show why it is impossible to balance CV's & surface ships in this game. The advancement in the way battle is conducted has sufficiently changed with the introduction of CV's, it is no longer the age old artillery dual between ships. I would say it would be like giving one side an Apache helicopter in a WW1 war game and trying to balance it.

  • Cool 11
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
391
[ODIN]
Members
1,322 posts
3,206 battles

Ah yes, because of things that happened in reality, it's impossible to balance things in a video game.

Neat little history factoid, though. Thanks.

Edited by Frenotx
  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
402
Members
768 posts
1,178 battles
29 minutes ago, Frenotx said:

Ah yes, because of things that happened in reality, it's impossible to balance things in a video game.

Neat little history factoid, though. Thanks.

When the game is a reflection of reality, then yes.

 

I don't know why, but WG is unable to grasp the basic concepts of why planes were superior to ships.  There is no way to balance the combat interaction between the two and have both parties enjoy the experience.

 

The only way to balance is bend outside of reality and create a different interaction that didn't actually exist historically. 

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
391
[ODIN]
Members
1,322 posts
3,206 battles
3 minutes ago, ruar said:

When the game is a reflection of reality, then yes.

 

I don't know why, but WG is unable to grasp the basic concepts of why planes were superior to ships.  There is no way to balance the combat interaction between the two and have both parties enjoy the experience.

 

The only way to balance is bend outside of reality and create a different interaction that didn't actually exist historically. 

WG does not seem to have any issues or objections to bending reality.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,248
[POP]
Beta Testers
4,007 posts
5,775 battles
2 minutes ago, Frenotx said:

WG does not seem to have any issues or objections to bending reality.

imagine if the game didn't have concealment.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
416
[ANZ4C]
Beta Testers
1,015 posts
9 minutes ago, ruar said:

When the game is a reflection of reality, then yes.

The only way to balance is bend outside of reality and create a different interaction that didn't actually exist historically. 

I, too, am frustrated that my matches are over in 20 minutes, rather than the more realistic three days that many naval engagements took

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
391
[ODIN]
Members
1,322 posts
3,206 battles
8 minutes ago, Cruxdei said:

imagine if the game didn't have concealment.

And if ship artillery was anywhere near as accurate as it was historically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,248
[POP]
Beta Testers
4,007 posts
5,775 battles
Just now, Frenotx said:

And if ship artillery was anywhere near as accurate as it was historically.

DDs with limited ammount of torpedoes per game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
371
[LHG]
Members
1,494 posts
5,995 battles
1 minute ago, Frenotx said:

And if ship artillery was anywhere near as accurate as it was historically.

TBH, I think the worst thing after no concealment would be proper distance scaling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
402
Members
768 posts
1,178 battles
16 minutes ago, Frenotx said:

WG does not seem to have any issues or objections to bending reality.

Agreed, and I'm glad they do. They just need to bite the bullet and stop having aircraft attack ships in random.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
391
[ODIN]
Members
1,322 posts
3,206 battles
1 minute ago, Flashtirade said:

TBH, I think the worst thing after no concealment would be proper distance scaling.

 

1 minute ago, Cruxdei said:

DDs with limited ammount of torpedoes per game.

 

Indeed. To be fair with concealment and distance scaling, though, proper distances and a properly curved map would lead to a functional concealment based on that height of the target vs. the height of your spotting positing. Limited horizon distance and all that. It's what the surface concealment is (loosely) based on, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
942
[SOV]
Members
2,645 posts
1 hour ago, kgh52 said:

May 4-8 of 1942 saw a drastic change in naval warfare with the Battle of Coral Sea. This is the 1st time a naval battle where the opposing ships did not see each other. Yes, there was Taranto & Pearl Harbor before Coral Sea but these were attack on ships in port, which are much easier to hit & much easier to sink. In 1942 the military outcome out of the battle weighted the fact that battleships and heavy cruisers were now obsolete as front line naval power and negated to floating AA barges & offshore artillery platforms.

I bring this up for 2 reasons. One, it is historical and the anniversary of this battle is over the weekend. The other is to show why it is impossible to balance CV's & surface ships in this game. The advancement in the way battle is conducted has sufficiently changed with the introduction of CV's, it is no longer the age old artillery dual between ships. I would say it would be like giving one side an Apache helicopter in a WW1 war game and trying to balance it.

So you take a historical event and turn it into anti CV rant. Sad.

 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,185
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
10,642 posts
15,896 battles
1 hour ago, Frenotx said:

Ah yes, because of things that happened in reality, it's impossible to balance things in a video game.

Well, they've had 3 years, 2 different play style metas, and God only knows how many different patches, buffs, nerfs, and just plain changes to CVs and what do we have?

The rework was supposed to eliminate vet CV players from rolling over lesser skilled CV players ….. FAILED MISERABLY.

The rework was supposed to make CVs less able to dominate any given match ….. FAILED MISERABLY.

The rework was supposed to balance CVs against other types of ships, the surface combatants ….. FAILED MISERABLY.

So not only has the rework failed, but CVs are in the exact same spot they were when they were introduced into the game when it went live, and every attempt to balance them within the structure of the game has been a complete and total waste of effort which has changed absolutely nothing.

Except that now a HUGE percentage of the player base is so damn fed up they have either quit or are giving it serious thought.

So, yeah, I'm going to have to say that balance thing you keep talking about only exists in the dim and dark recesses of your mind.

The rest of us only have reality, that being CVs are unbalanced and always will be in a game about surface combat.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,185
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
10,642 posts
15,896 battles
44 minutes ago, Frenotx said:

WG does not seem to have any issues or objections to bending reality.

Radar proves that's true.

32 minutes ago, Frenotx said:

And if ship artillery was anywhere near as accurate as it was historically.

Ship artillery is MORE accurate than it was historically. MUCH more.

16 minutes ago, Forgottensoldier117 said:

This important historical event has nothing to do with game balance issues. 

So ….. ?

11 minutes ago, jags_domain said:

So you take a historical event and turn it into anti CV rant. Sad.

And then you whine about without adding anything positive to the discussion either way; sadder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
693
[TDRB]
Members
2,545 posts
7,337 battles
9 minutes ago, jags_domain said:

So you take a historical event and turn it into anti CV rant. Sad.

Rant: to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild or vehement way; rave:

My post does not have a single characteristic of a rant as defined by our dictionaries. It is sad you did not recognize this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
693
[TDRB]
Members
2,545 posts
7,337 battles
20 minutes ago, Forgottensoldier117 said:

This important historical event has nothing to do with game balance issues. 

That is where you are incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
741
[S0L0]
Alpha Tester
2,307 posts
3,302 battles

tenor.gif?itemid=7532962

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
693
[TDRB]
Members
2,545 posts
7,337 battles
1 hour ago, Frenotx said:

Ah yes, because of things that happened in reality, it's impossible to balance things in a video game.

Neat little history factoid, though. Thanks.

Yes, it is impossible to balance and keep the game somewhat realistic. WG does push the limits with concealment, torpedoes, etc. But they actually do bring about some balance because all the ships fight similarly. CV's do not, they are a completely different animal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
809 posts
5,489 battles
20 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

That is where you are incorrect.

If this game was a sim then we could look to historical events like this in order to keep the game as close to historical acurate as possible. However world of warships is not a sim. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
391
[ODIN]
Members
1,322 posts
3,206 battles
1 hour ago, Umikami said:

Well, they've had 3 years, 2 different play style metas, and God only knows how many different patches, buffs, nerfs, and just plain changes to CVs and what do we have?

The rework was supposed to eliminate vet CV players from rolling over lesser skilled CV players ….. FAILED MISERABLY.

The rework was supposed to make CVs less able to dominate any given match ….. FAILED MISERABLY.

A vet CV player will contribute significantly more than a noob counterpart (as is the case with literally any ship), but they can no longer shut down the inferior CV and prevent them from contributing at all. That's why CVs have such brutal AA and that powerful CAP, and why fighter play is now so extremely limited. Instead of directly canceling out your counterpart, you're just striving to do better than them (again, as it is with most other ship pairings).

Considering how many reworked CV matches I've had where I kicked total butt, literally got more experience than anyone else in the entire match (including the other CV), and still lost horribly, I don't fully buy the "CVs still decide the outcome of the match" line, either. I've had my fair share of matches on the other side, too- looked like a complete fool relative to the opposing CV, but still ended up winning. When the superior CV generally either outright destroyed or otherwise shutdown the inferior CV quickly making it 11 v 12, sure. Now? I'm not so sure.

1 hour ago, Umikami said:

Ship artillery is MORE accurate than it was historically. MUCH more.

That was my point. Even the less accurate ships in-game are practically lasers by comparison to real line. WG took massive liberties with reality for the sake of game play and balance. There's nothing that says they can't do (or haven't done) the same with aircraft. Hence, "CVs can't be balanced because history" is a ridiculous argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
693
[TDRB]
Members
2,545 posts
7,337 battles
2 hours ago, Forgottensoldier117 said:

If this game was a sim then we could look to historical events like this in order to keep the game as close to historical acurate as possible. However world of warships is not a sim. 

I made no comment, nor did I imply or even come close to hinting Warships is a simulator or close to historical accurate. Of course I expected most to assume rather than read what I was stating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,747
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,557 posts
11,568 battles

The more interesting Coral Sea - WOWS comparison to me is this.

At Coral Sea carriers sank 2 carriers and seriously damaged 2 others.

They did also sink a couple of destroyers and a tanker, but one of those (Sims) and one of the tankers sunk (Neosho) were attacked due to being mis-identified as carriers and subjected to a full strike.

 

Overall carriers historically almost ruthlessly prioritized attacking each other. In game carriers have almost zero incentive to attack each other thanks to catapult fighters and incredible fire/DoT resistance, just like reality, fire on a carrier full of planes, gasoline, bombs: never a big deal...

Of course, the historic precedent at Coral Sea would also have the surface ships sailing around fairly aimlessly trying to help in AA, but that sounds pretty miserable as a game.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,185
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
10,642 posts
15,896 battles
2 hours ago, Frenotx said:

There's nothing that says they can't do (or haven't done) the same with aircraft.

Please, there is a gap between air power and gun power that defies measurement or balance. The power of surface combatants is like having a really nice rifles black powder rifle AKA the Civil War; it takes forever to load but it's deadly accurate for 300 or 400 yards in the hands of a qualified marksman. 

Then you add air power, which is like giving the other side .50 caliber machine guns. They shoot further, they reload faster, and they do it from a place where you can't fire back at them. Now please tell me how you are going to balance those two weapons without just gutting one or using a magic wand on the other. Can't be done.

You cannot balance air power with gun power, as the former is what replaced the latter because it was just that much deadlier.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×