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

It should have been a WWI game

34 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

373
[AOH]
Members
984 posts
7,157 battles

Would have simplified things for sure. Dreadnoughts were king. Didn't even have radio in most cases, forcing signals. There was a greater fog-of-war. No CVs. Lots of torpedo duds.

There were a lot of commanders, commodores and admirals that didn't know what the hell they were doing....all these things added up to closer cooperation on the part of the team that wanted to win.

Pretty much everything WG designers dream about when they get sleep.

 

As it stands, the aircraft carrier changed everything and the Japanese knew how to use it to their advantage. The role of every ship changed in every navy around the world. But small maps + aircraft carriers + 30 minute matches does not make sense in the scope of WWII naval combat.

I've said it from the beginning, carriers don't belong. The entire game needed a rework to accommodate them.

 

Midway alone took several days of searching, straggling into attacks, carriers on both sides being struck, with several objectives on the parts of both sides, over vast sea distances. On the scale of this game, Enterprise launched her strikes from 50 maps away. There is no way to get a single strike group up over your own carrier in the time allotted for each match if realism is to be accounted for...

But once going....devastating. A single error in judgment on the part of the Japanese and single groups stumbling on the carriers deleted 4 majors. They were the primary targets. Without them, all the battleships in the world couldn't accomplish the mission.

______________________________________________

How do you bring THAT to WoWS? That is the question. I doubt it's even possible, but from a purely intellectual exercise, here are my thoughts...

(Sending a second cup of coffee down to check on the first and see why it isn't doing its job)

Given the scope of a naval battle in WoWs....

1. Carrier strikes are expected but not likely. Remove carriers from the game as a playable unit. Refund appropriately, with purchased CVs giving the players a choice of any other ship. There's no reason not to.

2. A carrier strike in any engagement is now a rarity, but it can happen. They weren't coordinated in reality, so perhaps single groups might straggle onto the map and do their thing, entirely run by the AI.

3. Use the current submarine mechanics. Change nothing.

4. Leave AA as it is.

5. Focus on the surface engagements.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Add more maps with more meaningful objectives.

Stupid coffee....

 

 

 

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,507
Members
2,265 posts
30,025 battles

You should screen-shot this post. It's a good one. Of course, since it's anti-CV it'll likely be deleted because it's unwanted speech. That's generally how things work here.

Really, do screen-shot it for its value.

;)

  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,797
[DEV_X]
[DEV_X]
Alpha Tester
3,377 posts
28,299 battles

How simple of a game do you want? I mean honestly, 3 classes of ships that are inherently the same. Meanwhile other online games have so much more variety. You could download any number of mobile games that you just point and shoot over and over on. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18,702
[ARGSY]
Members
25,679 posts
19,754 battles

If you want WW1, stop grinding at Tier 6 or take your T6 dreadnoughts to operations where there are currently no carriers.

They're never going to take CVs out of the game so just stop asking for it, okay?  STOP IT. You're making me hate you.

The problem is that there are too few ships in the relevant time frame to fit a ten-tier bracket. Even if you go back to the pre-dreadnought era, there aren't enough ships there for more than one or two tiers. Beyond that is the era of turreted muzzle loaders, and guns that in real life took up to FIVE MINUTES to load the next shot, with turret turning times that make the Queen Elizabeth or Yamato look like an Atlanta. Balance would be almost impossible.

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
373
[AOH]
Members
984 posts
7,157 battles
7 minutes ago, Skuggsja said:

How simple of a game do you want? I mean honestly, 3 classes of ships that are inherently the same. Meanwhile other online games have so much more variety. You could download any number of mobile games that you just point and shoot over and over on. 

It's true. But without a rework of the entire game, there is just nothing else that can be done that I can think of...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,279
[SIM]
Members
5,915 posts
9,434 battles

Oh look, a CV whine thread couched as something “different.” Sometimes I think that this forum is really just the movie Groundhog Day, without any of the charm. 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,267 posts
8,742 battles
1 minute ago, SkaerKrow said:

Oh look, a CV whine thread couched as something “different.” Sometimes I think that this forum is really just the movie Groundhog Day, without any of the charm. 

Has it ever occurred to you that your post is of itself, nothing more than the same 'whine' you complain someone else is doing...or at best a troll.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,185
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
35 minutes ago, Wepps said:

s it stands, the aircraft carrier changed everything and the Japanese knew how to use it to their advantage.

uhhh the Royal Navy invented both the Aircraft Carrier and all the tactics used by the Japanese. The first Carrier Attack was conducted by the Royal Navy in WWI. The Pearl Harbor attack was just a bigger version of the Attack on Taranto which was in 1940.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,984
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
13,198 posts
4 minutes ago, Cuesta_Rey said:

Has it ever occurred to you that your post is of itself, nothing more than the same 'whine' you complain someone else is doing...or at best a troll.

No, he's right you know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
912 posts
14,779 battles

Giving the Royal Navy credit for

7 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

all the tactics used by the Japanese

is a huge mistake. The RN did lay the foundation, but NOONE took it to the level the IJN did at the start of WWII. That kind of massed firepower was an IJN idea while other Navies were still considering CVs as spotters and scouts for the BB fleet.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,016
[NONE]
Members
4,078 posts
12,612 battles

If only there was a big enough player base to profitably support them, WG has a solid starting point for not one but two companion games or special game modes.

One would be WW2 in the Pacific, and let CV lovers have their own special playground with AI support ships on huge Ocean-style maps.

Another would be a classical gunnery brawl in the early Dreadnought age.

WG already uses time and space compression to facilitate playability and short matches, and could be applied to both as necessary.

If only, if only...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
200
[414TH]
Members
373 posts
5,398 battles

There are lots of improbable things in this game.  CVs are just one.  How about DDs that can shrug off 16" AP with relative impunity and can shoot limitless torpedoes while seeing through smoke that no one else can see through?  How about cruisers that can pelt down rainbows of thousands of HE shells to burn down any battleship?  Or bow tanking (who knew bows could bounce 16" shells? That "crossing the T" being a good idea business, fake news)?  

For my part, I list CVs pretty low on the scale of utterly ludicrous things in WOWS that simply need to be tolerated in order to enjoy the game without losing one's mind.  You just have to accept that there are completely ahistorical and stupid things going on here because it's a game (programmed by landlocked Belarussians).  It's DDs that are the most important thing in the game as currently designed.  Everything else is a very pretty sideshow.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,874 posts
94 battles

You said "it should have been a WWII game", but then proceed to describe a WWI battle.

Good job at masking a CV whine thread.

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
373
[AOH]
Members
984 posts
7,157 battles

Oh I think it's plainly clear where WG wants to go. I'd much rather have fun and interesting carrier combat, but with there being absolutely zero reward for it or much positive effect in any given battle; with the scope of the game being too small,  I don't find myself trusting them at the moment.

Everybody wants to play surface battles. They complained too much about CVs, Now CVs are worthless.

There is some value in that. Just remove them.

Now people are complaining about that idea. They want players who desire to play a CV to be unrewarded for doing so, and have no effect on the battle, but leave them in the game because it's a WWII arcade game.

Which is it? You can't have both, trolls.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
373
[AOH]
Members
984 posts
7,157 battles
2 minutes ago, RyuuohD_NA said:

You said "it should have been a WWII game", but then proceed to describe a WWI battle.

Good job at masking a CV whine thread.

Read the title again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,185
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
19 minutes ago, Prothall said:

The RN did lay the foundation, but NOONE took it to the level the IJN did at the start of WWII. That kind of massed firepower was an IJN idea while other Navies were still considering CVs as spotters and scouts for the BB fleet.

uhh what the [edited] are you talking about? Using massed aircraft from carriers was used by the RN in both the Mediterranean and Norwegian Campaigns in 1940. There was pretty much NOTHING about aircraft carriers the RN didn't do first, including armoured decks, CAPs, Hurricane Bows, Steam Catapults (first tested by RN in 1938 but not fully adopted), arrestor gear (the RN was using CATOBAR in 1940, the USN didn't fully switch till 44'), waved attacks (Taranto), night launches/landings (Taranto, Calabria), first land attack (Tondern raid), first harbor attack (Taranto), and at sea long range strikes (Norway and Bismarck). The IJN contributed basically nothing to the theory of Carrier use or design.

Edited by _RC1138
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
373
[AOH]
Members
984 posts
7,157 battles
4 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

uhh what the [edited] are you talking about? Using massed aircraft from carriers was used by the RN in both the Mediterranean and Norwegian Campaigns in 1940. There was pretty much NOTHING about aircraft carriers the RN didn't do first, including armoured decks, CAPs, Steam Catapults, arrestor gear (the RN was using CATOBAR in 1940, the USN didn't fully switch till 44'), waved attacks (Taranto), night launches/landings (Taranto), first land attack (Tondern raid), first harbor attack (Taranto), and at sea long range strikes (Norway and Bismarck). The IJN contributed basically nothing to the theory of Carrier use or design.

"The Japanese knew how to use it to their advantage" to quote an excellent post that, in no way, intended to diminish the efforts of the RN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,185
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
1 minute ago, Wepps said:

"The Japanese knew how to use it to their advantage" to quote an excellent post that, in no way, intended to diminish the efforts of the RN.

I would argue they copied the Royal Navy, as was the Japanese modus operandi from ~1850 til 1945. The Japanese lacked any appreciable naval/nautical engineering advancements in that period and pretty much worked on the principle of '...but bigger' for everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
373
[AOH]
Members
984 posts
7,157 battles
1 minute ago, _RC1138 said:

I would argue they copied the Royal Navy, as was the Japanese modus operandi from ~1850 til 1945. The Japanese lacked any appreciable naval/nautical engineering advancements in that period and pretty much worked on the principle of '...but bigger' for everything.

They copied the RN at Pearl Harbor, using the lessons learned from Taranto. They didn't suddenly whip up 10 aircraft carriers out of nothing because of it.

The Japanese realized the necessity for carriers at the same time the British did, but in the Pacific the game was entirely different. If you review Japanese ships from 1905 onward, range becomes everything to them and nothing extended range like aircraft. Their aircraft were excellent in a fight at any level of discussion, but more-so they had RANGE beyond anyone else's capabilities at the time. When did even the US match the outright range of the Zero?

Easy for Japan, they could focus on the needs and necessities of Pacific warfare. Great Britain's massive empire required many more needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
236 posts
39 minutes ago, So_lt_Goes said:

If only there was a big enough player base to profitably support them, WG has a solid starting point for not one but two companion games or special game modes.

One would be WW2 in the Pacific, and let CV lovers have their own special playground with AI support ships on huge Ocean-style maps.

Another would be a classical gunnery brawl in the early Dreadnought age.

WG already uses time and space compression to facilitate playability and short matches, and could be applied to both as necessary.

If only, if only...

Aye, there's the rub.

Were in a tiny niche market as games go, and fortunate to have this and [edited] at all despite their respective limitations and problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,185
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
22 minutes ago, Wepps said:

The Japanese realized the necessity for carriers at the same time the British did,

The British built their first Carriers in 1910. They deployed them in 1914. And had the first keel-up carrier on the blocks in 1918. The IJN didn't start Carrier development, even a conversion, until 1919. They launched first but the fact is the Royal Navy had Carriers in combat as early as 1914 during the Dardanelles campaign. 

22 minutes ago, Wepps said:

If you review Japanese ships from 1905 onward

They were almost always either direct purchases from GB (Kongo Class Battlecruisers), copies of acquired designs (Fuso/Ise class), or enlargements of the same (Nagato is an enlarged Kongo, right down to her framing being almost identical, Yamato was just an enlarged Nagato). Same goes for their cruisers and aircraft carriers. Only their destroyers were 100% home grown and surprise surprise, they were AWFULLY designed; grossly overweight, horridly unstable, and very poor sea boats.

22 minutes ago, Wepps said:

Their aircraft were excellent in a fight at any level of discussion

Not in 1905. And even by the 1920-30's, they were still copies typically. The Zero is just a Japanese patent infringement on the Vought V-141 and a bit of the Hughes H1.

As a general rule, Japanese engineering didn't strictly exist in the first half the 1900's. They generally practiced strictly copying behavior and lacked any appreciable home grown solutions. The few exceptions were typically problematic due to lacking fundamental understandings of the mechanics and methodologies of design (see: IJN Destroyers, IJA Firearms that were not just patent steals ect).

 

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
311 posts
1 hour ago, Skuggsja said:

How simple of a game do you want? I mean honestly, 3 classes of ships that are inherently the same. Meanwhile other online games have so much more variety. You could download any number of mobile games that you just point and shoot over and over on. 

 

110 destroyers, 124 cruisers and 91 battleship seems like more than enough variety to most of us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,119
[TARK]
Members
7,331 posts
3,408 battles

This is a really good topic and should be in the player feedback forum.

The preferred meta of the game, it seems based on WG statements and actions, would be WW1 up through the mid 1920s. I.e. before massed airpower became a thing.

As for lack of ships...

Royal Navy battleships

Majestic class

Canopus class

Formidable class

London class

Duncan class

King Edward VII class

Swiftsure class

Lord Nelson class

 

US Navy battleships

Indiana class

Iowa (BB-4)

Kearsarge class

Illinois class

Maine class

Virginia class

Connecticut class

Mississippi class

Etc

Etc

Etc

There are far, FAR more ships in the pre-WW1 era than there are in the post WW1 era (due to cost, primarily). Take ships designed from the mid 1890s on, and you will be able to nearly double the tech tree...plus add lots more nations.

-----------

As for the RN, yes...they are the pioneers of aircraft carrier warfare. It is truly a pity for the Empire that WW1 bankrupted the nation and hamstrung their further development.

The IJN was happy sinking japan into crushing debt to make the technological leaps that Britain could not afford...while only the USN had the resources to properly exploit all of the potential of the new weapon system...but refused to do so until forced by their enemies.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,016
[NONE]
Members
4,078 posts
12,612 battles
46 minutes ago, Idaho_Spud said:

Aye, there's the rub.

Were in a tiny niche market as games go, and fortunate to have this and [edited] at all despite their respective limitations and problems.

TBH, I jumped on the Steam sale of Naval Action and have been immersing myself in the fighting sail motif. An even tinier niche, but you never have to worry about torp soup or sky cancer. :Smile-_tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×