Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Elo_J_Fudpucker

Leyte Gulf

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
2,137 posts
13,173 battles

The last time battlehships fought each other in the real world was October 1944. ... and it should be noted this was a last ditch effort by the Japanese to stop the allies.

The point is that Carriers created a battle situation where the Battleship was no longer a viable. Battleships under construction were scrapped, because it was very clear that a CV made the BB obsolete.

Yet, here we are trying to shoe-horn in a mechanism that in real life was absolutely dominant and made BBs suitable for artillery barrages only.

I appreciate that WG "is driven" to make CV fit, but the reality is that they do not... fit.  Look at the leaps and flips and bending over backward WG is having to do to make them fit, and it just keeps getting worse.

A CV in the battle unbalances the forces and it cannot help but do this. The very nature and presence of a CV means that they instantly are the dominating and controlling influence on the battlefield, and there is really no way that they are not going to do this.  It doesn't matter what ship I am in, when a CV is in battle, it completely changes the way I interact. The OP nature of the CV is such that they have had to nerf the crap out of it in order to make it fit, and have nerf'd up the AA on ships to do the same ( no ship I have has anywhere near the volume or accuracy of previous AA) 

It is all milk-toast... everyone is being nerfed in order to show horn this in, and it just does not work for me. It just does not work.  You can't introduce game changing mechanics without ..err.. changing the game.

There are specifics that have been batted around endlessly, but it just comes down to the point of,

"Inserting a CV into naval battle scenario, and have it still be a CV that has CV capabilities, introduces a dominant force to the battle that makes previous ship to ship battle obsolete"

So what WG has here is two different games... Carrrier Task Force and World of Warships.. .they are different games... they were different in history.
 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,095
[KNMSU]
Members
7,086 posts
7,668 battles

You're approaching the argument from a poor direction. The game has never been a sim, and its accuracy - what little it possessed - has only eroded with the passage of time. Yes, I agree with you: real life CVs utterly altered nearly all aspects of naval warfare. But you're going to get beat over the head repeatedly with "it's not a sim," and, frankly, they're right.

A better take on the matter is simply that carriers don't jive with the meta of the rest of the game. When CVs aren't present, the entire experience of WoWs is built around vessels that must hazard themselves to inflict damage - you have to poke your head over the wall to shoot your gun. For carriers, there is neither wall nor firearm - they're off doing donuts in a corner while their INFINITE aircraft scream across the map like X-wings.

THAT'S why CVs don't belong in this game - not history, but expectations of fair play.

Edited by Battleship_Elisabeth
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
798
[HELLS]
Members
2,661 posts
27,118 battles
10 minutes ago, Battleship_Elisabeth said:

THAT'S why CVs don't belong in this game - not history, but expectations of fair play.

Who said life was fair?? There were so many unbalanced things in the game even before the CV rework the nerf bat became WG's main tool in the developement toolbox. This is an arcade shoot-em-up that, every once in while, puts up a scenario battle that is at least somewhat historical in nature with regard to ships and topography i.e., Dunkirk and Empress Augusta Bay.

I am still waiting for the Battle off Samar, which is very do-able as a scenario -T5 CVs and T9 DDs against T8 CAs and DDs and T5 , T7 and T10 BBs!!. I play those historical scenarios with a vengeance. The rest is just eye candy at this point, so much so that I have pretty much stopped playing Randoms, mabe a half dozen Random games per week.

I play CVs, but have never been a fan to be honest. As a longtime player I am quite frankly starting to lose interest at this point. I have played exactly 3 games in DDs in Randoms since the rework and went back to playing cruisers and battleships since even a Gearing with an AA build, DFAA and smoke has difficulty coping with T10 CVs, to the detriment of her main missions. Time for a game split I think....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,695
[5D2]
[5D2]
Supertester
2,349 posts
23,744 battles

I personally appreciate the historical accuracy of Space Battles and Halloween events because they dont have carriers, most of the time.

The game has a basis in history but isnt meant to directly reflect it. The models and designs are meant to be historical and some of the capabilities of the ships are meant to reflect real world abilities but in the end the game is balanced as an arcade game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,095
[KNMSU]
Members
7,086 posts
7,668 battles
1 hour ago, GrandAdmiral_2016 said:

Who said life was fair??

Life isn't fair. This, however, is a game. Games - almost as a rule - seek to adopt equality because it cultivates sportsmanship, encourages the loser to try again, and leaves all comers (players and spectators) with a sense that everything that happened was above board.

By nesting this issue under a saying like 'life is unfair,' you are essentially conceding the point that you are playing a broken, overpowered type simply to maintain a sense of dominance over others. At least you're honest, I guess.

Edited by Battleship_Elisabeth
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,186
[SALVO]
Members
24,776 posts
25,829 battles
1 hour ago, Elo_J_Fudpucker said:

The last time battlehships fought each other in the real world was October 1944. ... and it should be noted this was a last ditch effort by the Japanese to stop the allies.

The point is that Carriers created a battle situation where the Battleship was no longer a viable. Battleships under construction were scrapped, because it was very clear that a CV made the BB obsolete.

Yet, here we are trying to shoe-horn in a mechanism that in real life was absolutely dominant and made BBs suitable for artillery barrages only.

I appreciate that WG "is driven" to make CV fit, but the reality is that they do not... fit.  Look at the leaps and flips and bending over backward WG is having to do to make them fit, and it just keeps getting worse.

A CV in the battle unbalances the forces and it cannot help but do this. The very nature and presence of a CV means that they instantly are the dominating and controlling influence on the battlefield, and there is really no way that they are not going to do this.  It doesn't matter what ship I am in, when a CV is in battle, it completely changes the way I interact. The OP nature of the CV is such that they have had to nerf the crap out of it in order to make it fit, and have nerf'd up the AA on ships to do the same ( no ship I have has anywhere near the volume or accuracy of previous AA) 

It is all milk-toast... everyone is being nerfed in order to show horn this in, and it just does not work for me. It just does not work.  You can't introduce game changing mechanics without ..err.. changing the game.

There are specifics that have been batted around endlessly, but it just comes down to the point of,

"Inserting a CV into naval battle scenario, and have it still be a CV that has CV capabilities, introduces a dominant force to the battle that makes previous ship to ship battle obsolete"

So what WG has here is two different games... Carrrier Task Force and World of Warships.. .they are different games... they were different in history.
 

 

FYI, the word is "milquetoast", not "milk-toast".  Also, I don't think, regardless of the misspelling, that you're even using the word properly.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,137 posts
13,173 battles
5 minutes ago, Crucis said:

FYI, the word is "milquetoast", not "milk-toast".  Also, I don't think, regardless of the misspelling, that you're even using the word properly.

Thank professor dictionary... I only wish I was as brilliant as you... but it does give me a goal to reach...and here... here is a definition for you that I refer to, despite the misspelling..

...you do realize how .... condescending .... you sound when you post like this...

adjective
adjective: milquetoast
  1. 1.
    feeble, insipid, or bland.
    "a soppy, milquetoast composer"

 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,186
[SALVO]
Members
24,776 posts
25,829 battles
1 minute ago, Elo_J_Fudpucker said:

Thank professor dictionary... I only wish I was as brilliant as you... but it does give me a goal to reach...and here... here is a definition for you that I refer to, despite the misspelling..

...you do realize how .... condescending .... you sound when you post like this...

adjective
adjective: milquetoast
  1. 1.
    feeble, insipid, or bland.
    "a soppy, milquetoast composer"

 

Do you realize how dumb you sound when you can't even spell a simple word like this properly?  Or then defend your inability to properly spell by attacking the person pointing it out?

Also, the definition you list for milquetoast is wrong.  You used it as a noun, not an adjective.  :Smile-_tongue:

Try again.  Or not.  I don't care one way or the other.

  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
890 posts
14,046 battles

We can all waste our time pointing at each other and saying, "YOU ARE WRONG!"

It doesn't matter unless you vote with your feet. If enough people are playing the game despite the unrest the CVs will be here to stay, and they deserve to stay if that many people don't mind them.

If you truly hate CV play in this game then simply stop playing. Enough people stop playing and Wargaming will pay attention. Whining is just whining if you don't back it up with action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,186
[SALVO]
Members
24,776 posts
25,829 battles
1 minute ago, Elo_J_Fudpucker said:

....

So concise and inciteful.  :Smile_teethhappy:  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,894
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
14,078 posts
19,197 battles
1 hour ago, Battleship_Elisabeth said:

You're approaching the argument from a poor direction.

The only reason the direction is poor is that is a direction that eliminates CVs, ships which never should have been in the game. WoW will never go for it, no matter how true it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,095
[KNMSU]
Members
7,086 posts
7,668 battles
1 minute ago, Umikami said:

The only reason the direction is poor is that is a direction that eliminates CVs, ships which never should have been in the game.

No, they shouldn't have ever been in the game. But this is the same company that thought artillery would be a good concept for a game about FPS-like tank battles (as if artillery - positioned miles away - could perform precision strikes on moving vehicles). I think the fault at least partly with us for having such high expectations. In fact, really, WoWs should have been blighted like this from the start, if all had gone according to Wargaming's plans. We simply got lucky that they were SO incompetent at solving this unfixable problem that we got two years of the game being essentially carrier-free.

Now, sadly, they're making up for lost time. Our bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
590
[NKOTD]
Members
1,040 posts
9,721 battles
1 hour ago, Skuggsja said:

I personally appreciate the historical accuracy of Space Battles and Halloween events because they dont have carriers, most of the time.

The game has a basis in history but isnt meant to directly reflect it. The models and designs are meant to be historical and some of the capabilities of the ships are meant to reflect real world abilities but in the end the game is balanced as an arcade game.

+1 for funny sarcasm.

I also agree about space battles.  At first I talked quite disparagingly about it, but after a few battles I discovered the actual gameplay was much more enjoyable than randoms (which I hardly play anymore since behind the island orgies are not my thing).  It was more fun for me with lack of cv and objectives encouraged more offensive behavior being a couple of (but not only) reasons .

Some of those elements could be incorporated into randoms now but I"m not holding my breath.

 

,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,095
[KNMSU]
Members
7,086 posts
7,668 battles
3 minutes ago, RipNuN2 said:

v6mWcj4.gif

See? I told you. You opened the door for a... *sigh*... person like this to post that. Always - always - slam the door in this guy's face. Then deadbolt it. Then unleash hounds through smaller, hidden doors. They'll take care of the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
699
[KNCOL]
Members
784 posts
1,728 battles

This thread is going nowhere so....

 

 

 

 

 

Here's a picture of a Garfield AT-AT to make the time you wasted here more entertaining 

88d8434.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,137 posts
13,173 battles

Once again, a thread deteriorates into attacks on the poster and the original topic being buried under posts that seek to divert rather than discuss.... why can't people just have a discussion?  Why does it have to  degrade into these attack posts... ffs if you don't like a post, just move on, the world doesn't need your judgement and all it does is derail what could be a thread that actually discusses something... but nope... it's gotta be derailed..  @FemennenIy .. this is the issue I pointed out last fall... someone posts something, and instead of it becoming a discussion of the merits ( or otherwise) of the subject at hand, it turns into personal attacks that derail the conversation... I am not butt hurt by this, just annoyed that the forum, which could be a great resource, just degrades into this kind of useless discussion and makes using the forum less enjoyable and therefore less of use to the avg user or new user.... what do they think and how will they interact when they see posts that do nothing but attack the poster and not the post?... annnnywho... it just gets old, and there is no need for it.. It is juvenile and disrespectful to the poster and the forum.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×