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

Opinions with paper ships in game?

24 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
95 posts
688 battles

Yes, I know. You probably have heard of the other people who put up forum names like this, who rant and rail about all the paper ships in the game and how they never entered service

I hope to take a more moderate view.

 In my opinion, a "fake" ship is a ship that was a) designed with little to no effective purpose  b) was not truly considered for production and not deemed effective and/or feasible, or c) was never really designed in depth in the first place.  Of course, your opinions may vary, and I respect that. That is why there is a poll section for you to vote on. 

The real "fake" ship problem in my mind are those implemented in the game that really were based mostly off of vague documents and blueprints or not based off any concept at all and just made off of a large amount of assumptions based off of what a ship of it's type and role would look like when compared with similar ships of other roles, time periods, and nations. Most paper ships are vague enough, having big holes or just not enough info in critical design specifications, requiring even more assumptions, leading to all sorts of wierd designs being implemented in the game that basically scream this:

 image.png.90dc3a4124b2e27e2a8a9d3d97c23185.png   -> A lot of the higher tier ships don't even really have papers to begin with, so it's this2  

I really think that WG should get reliable info if they are to put paper ships in the game at all, and unless it's for balance purposes to rival a true ship that didn't have true contesters in real life, they should stick to ships from pre 50s that actually existed. 

I kinda would like to recommend this guide as a template:

1: Is it competitive/fun? I know that this is mostly about historical accuracy, but if it's not fun, why play it? And if it destroys game balance, then it simply is another gimmick for players to complain about. 

2: Did it see service during ww2 or in the following months? If it did, why not put it in the game? It was built, saw service, and probably there is reliable documentation somewhere to code into the game. If not, then:

3: Was it built during or right after ww2?  If it was, and just didn't see service then 

a) it was no longer relevant to the era: WoWs can probably handle that. The t10 BBs if completely historical would be killed by t10 aircraft in minutes, so if you have a late war BB that was scrapped for combat ineffectiveness, thats not the ships fault as much as its the fleets. 

b)  a combination of a and it the need for it's materials caused it to be converted to something else (e.g. USS Lexington).  Thats also not the ships fault. If the Montana was canceled because the USN because they needed more Essexses, it's their loss when Yamato kills taffy 3. 

c) It just wasn't good or/it was impossible to manufacture it. If the Navy it was being built by deemed it bad at it's intended role, then it probably wasn't a good design and should not be implemented in the game. I know if you buffed it - just no. Minor changes maybe, but too much and it's virtually a new ship that didn't exist. 

d) It wasn't built until the 50s or later. If it's a 40s era ship built in the 50s, maybe. Missile ships won't work though, WG is very firm that it doesn't like guided missiles. 

4: What about a paper ship? If you look at the wiki and can find most preferably all of the stats that can be applied into the game (excluding things like damage and hp), then probably. If not, then I wouldn't support it. We are just back a square 1, with too many assumptions and not enough facts. 

5: If it was only partially completed, or only a design study, did it have a combat purpose, or was it just to suit a dictators big ego and desire to have the most powerful ship in the world. In my mind, any ship in-game should have been designed with a specific battlefield role in mind. 

Those are my ideas, what do you think about paper ships in the game. Which have enough justification to be in WoWs, and which should be removed? I look forward to seeing your comments, even if they are "f*ck you you're wrong" or "you missed something." (preferably more thoughtful than that)

I hope that you found this informative, and it gave you food for thought, and I would love to see you using this to back up your own paper ship arguments. 

 

 

image.png

Edited by FirebirdXIV
  • Boring 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,268 posts
15,112 battles

My thoughts about the paper ships vs real ships in this game. 

giphy.gif

As long as the game has some semblance of "balance" (whatever you want to believe that is, and is going to be argued throughout this thread). I dont really care. 

  • Cool 5
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,259
[HINON]
Members
9,230 posts
13,912 battles

people say Russia's tech tree is full of paper ships, at least they have the excuse of those designs actually being made and probably planned to be made into steel versions at some point, meanwhile the T9 and T10 cruisers of the German line are PURE WG fantasy, no blueprints, no plans of them, nothing, just something WG poofed into existence, but like the guy above, i really dont care, i just see a new line coming, and all i care about are the new ships, not whether theyre real or not

Edited by tcbaker777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
889
[PROJX]
Beta Testers
1,386 posts
5,560 battles

I usually think they're fine unless they are insanely good/bordering broken (cough cough Kremlin)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,361
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,281 posts
12,191 battles

For me - my definition is - if it was actually put to paper, or at least known to be, it is a 'paper' ship, what becomes murky to me is 'real' ships. Case in point German CV's - many say Germany only had one CV, Graf Zeppelin, and nothing else - this is incorrect. There was a second ship started, but was scrapped because of  a tantrum. Germany had also started the work, after designing hem, to convert several other ships to CV's - but same tantrum caused work to be suspended there as well. My view is that work was started so they are more 'real' ships, but at worst should be considered paper. And to me paper at worst is not an issue, especially the more well documented ones.

However - I'm also understanding of the fact that in some of these cases, there's been evidence of a ship being designed, or knowledge that it was, but details or blueprints may not exist anymore or have been lost - a sad reality is that plenty of these kinds of documents and all were destroyed in bombings, fires, various disasters, lost in the chaos of war, or simply gotten rid of with the waste because no one thought history would care. Or per chance, as Wargaming does go in to archives, they simply may not have access to those designs. A case I can think of is the 'other' USN CV's - in 1941/42 after Pearl Harbor there was a need for new CV's fast, and the Essex's at the time were thought to take too long - so plans were drawn up to convert Cleveland, Baltimore, Alaska, and Iowa class ships to carriers. Now, obviously, Cleveland was chosen and became the Independence class. Iowa's design's are out there, but finding Alaska and Baltimore's has been difficult to say the least. The most I've found is that Alaska at least 'resembled a slightly smaller Essex Class', which it's safe to assume that possibly Baltimore's conversion was either the same, or the basis of the Saipan class that was built ground up as CV's but based on the Baltimore Hull. 

But I have no issue with paper ships - my belief however is that priority should be real ships, then paper, with 'fakes' only as needed to round out a line because yeah - otherwise we have no tier 10 German BB. That said - 'fakes' should A: make sense and B: be balanced, while also C: being the last resort. Issues I take with UK's BB line - Vanguard should be in it, not what we have. I also understand us adding new nations, which is where I can see us not having say the second USN BB line yet, but maybe should have had an Italian BB line before a Russian one - just saying.

However - I am massively salty on the fact in the last couple years, they've basically built a second USN line out of premiums, some of which are more or less fake - and that REALLY irks me when there's material they could have made just the second damned line.

 

Also - the games range seems more in line with the range of other Wargaming games - meaning that actually it heads in to the 50's ranges, at least Early/Mid so something like Clemenceau for French CV's, minus the fight we have to have over angled decks because it is a weird, archaic rule at this point - and one I never agreed with - is actually fair game, especially as they were meant to be built earlier even by the design that materialized, let alone the original class meant to bear that name. Even some of the ships built within the WW2 time frame are actually using fairly late refits - Iowa in game is a 1951 refit Mo had, and Belfast is either that ships 1959 or 1963 refit. As long as it didn't have anything too crazy - like guided missiles (which Wargaming did actually test, and I have a feeling the CV rework is based on those tests) - I think it's fine to add some of these because they are ships that still can fit because the late 40's and 50's were kind of a transitional period to what we have today in naval warfare. 

 

That and the game is historically BASED. When we can follow history - great, all for it. Sometimes, for the sake of gameplay or balance, may need to tweak things - this is fine more on tech tree ships - as the tech tree is a tad more sandbox, but a no no on premiums - why you will constantly see me ranting at Wargaming to change Kaga. That should have never happened, period. So say we take the Clemenceau and put it at tier 10 of France - that big an issue maybe just straighten the flight deck out, and seeing as there is still a rule against any jet give her whatever France would have had that fits at the tier. A slightly more 'what if she had been made sooner' version. I'll also constantly go over the fact of UK's planes acting as level bombers and IJN's AP DB's - these again to me are unnecessary changes that really serve no real purpose. IJN DB's, save maybe the B7A, could not carry the 800 kg bomb outside the Kamikaze role - they were dropped in level flight by TB's acting as level bombers - and when Michael Bay in 'Pearl Harbor' is more historically accurate when it comes to these kinda things than you are - there's a problem in my opinion. A lot of things have been changed or omitted from these carriers that would give them far more flavour and difference and give each line a truly unique feel - and much of it isn't sacrificed for gameplay but for foolishness. 

 

I have a very weird stance when it comes to real vs paper vs fake and all.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,034
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
28,473 posts
14,971 battles

For myself as long as the ship was ordered it isn't paper so the Prinz Eitel Friedrich for example while never completed was ordered and was well along in construction when it was canceled. Now most of the RU BB line is pure fantasy, mere proposals that never even got to the engineers to decide if it was feasible. There are so many ships that were built or meet the ordered requirement that we really do not need fantasy.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,932
[WAIFU]
[WAIFU]
Members
3,634 posts
16,867 battles

It makes me less interested in the game for sure. I enjoy reading about the background of historical ships and debating about how best to fit them into the game, and even for some of the more well-known paper designs (ie Monty) this is true, but all the new high tier premiums have as much depth as the paper from which they spawned. There's just nothing to talk about when it's a [mentally handicapped] ship built around a bunch of gimmicks, and I think they don't contribute anything besides exasperation to the game all the while being boring af. Keep trying to kill your game WG, one day you'll get it.

Edited by pikohan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,969 posts

There's only so many ships the world made from 1900 to 1960. Without paper ships you'd have a very boring game with half as many ships. I'd rather have more ships than appease the people who think WoWs is a simulator.

Edited by ElectroVeeDub
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,284
[WG-CC]
Wiki Editor, Members
9,100 posts
7,995 battles

As a general rule, I split up ships into four groups. What matters is the hull with some fundamental aspects, so if WG adds some superficial stuff it won‘t bother me:

1. completed (e.g. Prinz Eugen)

2. laid down but not completed (e.g. Z-52)

3. paper ship (e.g. Ernst Gaede)

4. fantasy ship (e.g. Hindenburg)

I personally draw my line between 2 and 3. laying down a ship means that at some point people with at least half a clue said "that works, build it". 

So say we have a tech tree with eight ships, like German destroyers. But for the love of god the ships that are completed only fill eight of the slots. Option a. would be to drop the entire tree, too bad. Option b. would be leaving the gaps in there and release as is, too bad. Option c. would be fillig those gaps with some suitable ships/designs that while not being completed, were underway. That fills the tree perfectly. And if said nation did not develop a ship within the powerlevel that is desired, making up a ship within reasonable limits is acceptable. 

But where I have issues is when paper/fictional ships start dominating a tree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,551
[EGO]
Banned
4,105 posts
16,276 battles

Are they balanced?

Do they make the game more fun?

Do they make gameplay better?

 

Whether they are paper is trivial.

The problem is paper ships have a High tendency to fail one or more of the first 3 tests.

 

 

 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36,601
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
26,214 posts
22,502 battles

As long as they have a semblance of balance and don't take the place of a built-in-steel ship I have no problems with paper.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,109
-Members-
5,295 posts
8,554 battles

I think paper and fictional made-up fantasy ships are absolutely necessary in game. Many nations would struggle to have a complete tech tree without them and they're crucial in filling out holes and completing lines.  Just imagine how barren Tier 10 would be with out them, or the headache of trying to compress the tier 9s and 10s down into the lower tiers.

And at the end of the day even the ships that were actually built have been gimmicked and twisted so much to fit into the game I think the difference between paper ships and real ships is heavily blurred.  It's kind of hard to relate the Yamato's lol-pen or KGV's HE spamming to their real life counterparts.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,136
[WOLF3]
Members
2,894 posts
7,668 battles

My biggest issue with paper ships is when they are given better performance attributes than their counterparts that were actually built.

The Montana, for example. A modest improvement over the Iowas, and was a ship the US had demonstrated it could build. Soviet BBs? Are you even kidding me?

Ships built to how someone hoped they'd performed vs those that were built and DID perform begs reconsideration when the not-built ship performs better.

Build an equivalent paper ship if you must, but not a superior one. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,442
[BEA5T]
Members
5,489 posts
25,910 battles

Does it really matter.........???  Without "somewhere to go" product wise to sell, there is no game.  Balance is a really nice thought, but doesn't sell ships.  I think, most of us playing know that....  OP/meta = sales.  for me, in comes down to "fun..."  Is it "fun" to play this game?  And, this last year or so has seen too many poorly planned (if planned) and implemented low quality products.... 

So, we have two choices:  play or not play.  Our host has zero intention of changing.  They steadfastly can and will do what they want despite anything we have to say.  Update 8.0 as an example.  So, for right now, we play and spend not a cent, are not referring the game anymore and, we see where our exit point is....   This isn't the first dance with our host and i and many I know are close to the yellow handle, yet again.  Not yet.  We want to see the sub roll out because a few of my friends are vet sub guys....  If it's 8.0 part duex, that will be a bad thing......  And, as history repeats itself, I'm not expecting too much....  Does it matter????  No.  It's just a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
95 posts
688 battles
9 hours ago, Octavian_of_Roma said:

My thoughts about the paper ships vs real ships in this game. 

giphy.gif

As long as the game has some semblance of "balance" (whatever you want to believe that is, and is going to be argued throughout this thread). I dont really care. 

Yeah, but image.png.a425b4999f69389287d01c76fe779ca6.png.

People will always argue about game balance. Thats just how people are, and you cant really change that. If everybody got their wish then we'd have an arms race, just like in real life, about who could build the most OP ship. Many people would consider the ideal ship one that is fast, impregnable, maneuverable, and armed with weapons unmatched in quality or quantity, but is only powerful in the hands of them. In other words, an "I win" tool exclusive to them.  I believe (maybe mistakenly) that most ships have comparable adversaries from most major powers. If we look at lion Vanguard, Iowa, and Richelieu, not in game, but as they were in real life, they weren't far apart as far as capability goes. So were Yamato and Montana, or Sov. Soyuz and North Carolina. If I were to do a comparison of two ships (i'll take the St. Louis and Mogami classes as built for my comparison) from a similar era, they would come out relatively similar to each other. As built, both had 15 6 in guns, lacked radar, but had advanced optics and fire control to counter for that. They were swift, powerful, and mounted DP armament (though lighter AA guns seem to be in short supply). They were similar ships built to rival each other on the high seas. History does a better job at balancing ships than we give it credit for. 

My point isn't that I don't like paper ships in the game, it just irks me when ships that have little or no basis in reality are slotted into positions, especially in larger navies, that a better documented paper ship, or god forbid, a real ship, could have fitted in just as well if not better. 

2 hours ago, Thornir said:

My biggest issue with paper ships is when they are given better performance attributes than their counterparts that were actually built.

The Montana, for example. A modest improvement over the Iowas, and was a ship the US had demonstrated it could build. Soviet BBs? Are you even kidding me?

Ships built to how someone hoped they'd performed vs those that were built and DID perform begs reconsideration when the not-built ship performs better.

Build an equivalent paper ship if you must, but not a superior one. 

Yeah, go tell that to the Kremlin. Or the Conquerer.  Or some other ship that I can't think of because I'm writing this at 5am. I would really wish WG would just stick to real ships because: 1. It virtually assures (*sighs in Yamato*) that there will be historical, reliable, accurate documents that can provide the devs with everything they need to make the ship fun and historical. 2. Real ships have real stats. They are facts. As long as WG stays true to those stats (some small modifications may be needed for balance), and those ships, there will be little power-creep and public uproar about massive changes to ships that completely change their very play-style. 3. I know that paper ships are now inseperable from the game, but please, can you put ships in the game that have concrete stats? Is that too much to ask? 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,040 posts
4,720 battles
3 hours ago, Thornir said:

My biggest issue with paper ships is when they are given better performance attributes than their counterparts that were actually built.

The Montana, for example. A modest improvement over the Iowas, and was a ship the US had demonstrated it could build. Soviet BBs? Are you even kidding me?

Ships built to how someone hoped they'd performed vs those that were built and DID perform begs reconsideration when the not-built ship performs better.

Build an equivalent paper ship if you must, but not a superior one. 

This. Paper and fantasy aren't synonymous.  There's a difference between a complete design cancelled for political reasons on one hand, and napkinwaffe or outright modern inventions on the other. Real, fully engineered designs have real stats and some inherent balancing. Wet dream ships, not so much.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,642
[O7]
Alpha Tester, Alpha Tester
12,147 posts
9,111 battles

I would rather have a unique design even if paper than copy #5 of some ship we already have in game. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
388
[-GOD-]
[-GOD-]
Members
1,383 posts
3 hours ago, Thornir said:

Build an equivalent paper ship if you must, but not a superior one. 

It's THE ONLY WAY they can build one lol (a superior one that is)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
388
[-GOD-]
[-GOD-]
Members
1,383 posts
3 minutes ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

I would rather have a unique design even if paper than copy #5 of some ship we already have in game. 

I agree as long as it's not so off-balance it's near god-level op, i won't give names but smelly fish comes to mind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
388
[-GOD-]
[-GOD-]
Members
1,383 posts
7 minutes ago, logane0616 said:

In my opinion, they're all just digital online ships anyway.

Ja, pixelbotes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,037
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
9,105 posts
16,872 battles

For the whole 'paper' or not, I don't tend to worry too much about the raft of sub-designations of paper or not.

You're commissioned or you're not. Simple as.

 

That said I don't think paper necessarily matters. There are paperships which are pretty reasonable for inclusion. I'd echo some sentiments that rather a papership than the 17th Fletcher or Gnevny or Omaha. I would be more interested in the North Carolina preliminary design with 3x4 14in guns for instance than the announced California, which adds to NY, NM, AZ, TX, WV-41 and CO in the 'Standard Battleship Playstyle' branch.

Part of the reason I'd like more commissioned ships is that commissioned ships I'd want seem to be selected against pretty hard in favor of typically Russian never commissioned ones. The RN which I'd like to see more ships from not only lacks huge swathes of designs, but is also the only nation to completely lack 'paper-ship' premiums, why I'm not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×