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

Remove planes and CVs from WowS

106 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

89
Members
265 posts
3,508 battles

CVs are warships. Thus planes are in World of Warships since CVs launch them.

Planes are not in World of Tanks because, as far as I know, tanks don't launch planes. If there is some amazing mobile airfield supertank, I would love to know.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
239
[55UP]
Members
407 posts
3,372 battles

WG has decided they want carriers in the game. They were in the game at launch, they just went through what was likely a costly rework last year. WG has said with words and actions that carriers are here to stay. 

Now, it’s up to you and and any others who object to carriers in the game to decide what you’re going to do. You can adapt as you’ve certainly adapted to other changes in the game, you can leave, or you can shake your fist in rage ineffectively  at WG and keep playing. Your choice.

None of it will affect the content of the game. 

Edited by FineousFingers
  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
483
[MEIST]
Members
1,505 posts
5,746 battles
6 minutes ago, JAPridemore said:

 Wargaming seems to feel the same as evidenced by the lack of airplanes in World of Tanks.

Tanks has artillery and that is also hated over there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
151
[JTF67]
Members
116 posts
5,461 battles

This game is so historical. How many carriers were sunk by enemy surface-ship gunfire, before they were abandoned? None.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
239
[55UP]
Members
407 posts
3,372 battles
Just now, JAPridemore said:

This game is so historical. How many carriers were sunk by enemy surface-ship gunfire, before they were abandoned? None.

HMS Glorious was sunk by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
151
[JTF67]
Members
116 posts
5,461 battles
2 minutes ago, FineousFingers said:

HMS Glorious was sunk by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. 

Good catch. You are correct. I have changed my mind. One or two carriers should be on each side in most battles even lower tier ones where ships have almost no defense.

Edited by JAPridemore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,342
[S0L0]
[S0L0]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,734 posts
7,251 battles
9 minutes ago, JAPridemore said:

The case for airplanes being in World of Warships as put forth by Wargaming and a small portion of the player base is bunk. As has been pointed out, this is an arcade historicish game not a simulator. Most players feel that airplanes and CVs ruin the game-play of ship vs. ship combat. Wargaming seems to feel the same as evidenced by the lack of airplanes in World of Tanks. Airplanes have had a massive impact, historically, on combat involving tracked vehicles (P47, SU-10) but players in WoT have no fear of air attack. If only WoWs had such an environment.

Well...  FTR,  Planes aren't exactly launched off  tracked vehicles?     Warships did launch planes..  BBs, CAs and CVs  .  All of which are by any definition ships...   

If you can show me a case where P47 or SU-10 are carried and launched from anything with tracks I'll go over to the WOT forums and argue for their addition..  I'll wait.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9
[POD]
Members
30 posts
17,964 battles
4 minutes ago, FineousFingers said:

HMS Glorious was sunk by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. 

Glorious was not able to launch planes in her defense. There were no carrier planes to throw them selves at the 2 German battlecruisers.  Could that happen in WoWs?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
151
[JTF67]
Members
116 posts
5,461 battles
3 minutes ago, iRA6E said:

Well...  FTR,  Planes aren't exactly launched off  tracked vehicles?     Warships did launch planes..  BBs, CAs and CVs  .  All of which are by any definition ships...   

If you can show me a case where P47 or SU-10 are carried and launched from anything with tracks I'll go over to the WOT forums and argue for their addition..  I'll wait.   

Wargaming adds fictional tanks to WoT all the time. Give 'em a week and they'll add a Russian Tank that launches planes. Now they have the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,029
[IXM]
Members
1,060 posts

CVs are cancer and don't belong in the game. That being said, WG will likely keep them because they add the perfect element of frustration they need to get people to spend money. 

  • Boring 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
6,187 posts
7,981 battles
14 minutes ago, Enpra said:

CVs are warships. Thus planes are in World of Warships since CVs launch them.

Planes are not in World of Tanks because, as far as I know, tanks don't launch planes. If there is some amazing mobile airfield supertank, I would love to know.

DA COMRADE! You lack the faith in glorious motherland! Sekrit dokument exists! Just wait, will see!


Now, off to gulag! Must be correcting pesky faithlessness in glorious motherland and will of people!

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,342
[S0L0]
[S0L0]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,734 posts
7,251 battles
4 minutes ago, JAPridemore said:

Wargaming adds fictional tanks to WoT all the time. Give 'em a week and they'll add a Russian Tank that launches planes. Now they have the idea.

Torpedoes aren't ships... I'd like them removed from the game?     WOT players don't have to deal with them either....   I think we should picket.    

  • Funny 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
485 posts
15,274 battles
16 minutes ago, FineousFingers said:

WG has decided they want carriers in the game. They were in the game at launch, they just went through what was likely a costly rework last year. WG has said with words and actions that carriers are here to stay. 

Now, it’s up to you and and any others who object to carriers in the game to decide what you’re going to do. You can adapt as you’ve certainly adapted to other changes in the game, you can leave, or you can shake your fist in rage effectively  at WG and keep playing. Your choice.

None of it will affect the content of the game. 

I choose to let my wallet speak for me and remain closed.  

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
325
[SNGNS]
Members
585 posts
6,824 battles

i don't know of a tank that launched planes, but i do know of a flying tank.

FLYING TANK IN WORLD OF TANKS WHEN WEEGEE?

AntonovA40.jpg

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
221 posts
8,674 battles
19 minutes ago, JAPridemore said:

This game is so historical. How many carriers were sunk by enemy surface-ship gunfire, before they were abandoned? None.

USS Gambier Bay and maybe USS St. Lo would argue with that.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_off_Samar

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
343
[WOLFC]
Members
520 posts
7,729 battles
Just now, TobTorp said:

i don't know of a tank that launched planes, but i do know of a flying tank.

FLYING TANK IN WORLD OF TANKS WHEN WEEGEE?

AntonovA40.jpg

I was just about to post this when the notification popped up...

As for the OP. No. Just...no. Not saying there aren't issues with the gameplay or balance, but they do have a place in the game.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,136
[TDRB]
Members
5,162 posts
13,743 battles
3 hours ago, FineousFingers said:

WG has decided they want carriers in the game. They were in the game at launch, they just went through what was likely a costly rework last year. WG has said with words and actions that carriers are here to stay. 

Now, it’s up to you and and any others who object to carriers in the game to decide what you’re going to do. You can adapt as you’ve certainly adapted to other changes in the game, you can leave, or you can shake your fist in rage effectively  at WG and keep playing. Your choice.

None of it will affect the content of the game. 

Are you sure none of it will affect the content of the game? As I understand it the CV rework & the attempt to add subs to the game are products of players demands, and a small number of players at that.

Most people who are shaking the fist in protest do continue to play & adapt to the current game.

I believe CV's are still broken. I believe the best way to fix them is to remove them & rework the rework. But I know that is NOT gonna happen.

Edited by kgh52
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
237
[TIGRB]
Members
235 posts
2,635 battles
23 minutes ago, JAPridemore said:

This game is so historical. How many carriers were sunk by enemy surface-ship gunfire, before they were abandoned? None.

HMS Glorious. IJN Chiyoda, USS Gambier Bay were all sunk by enemy gunfire in WW2. A few other American small CV's were were damaged by surface fire and later sunk by Aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,136
[TDRB]
Members
5,162 posts
13,743 battles
7 minutes ago, TobTorp said:

i don't know of a tank that launched planes, but i do know of a flying tank.

FLYING TANK IN WORLD OF TANKS WHEN WEEGEE?

AntonovA40.jpg

The USAF tested track landing gear on the B-36 but it was too heavy & very noisy so the test were abandoned.

image.png.b79aad111d761dc3e993e549995669c4.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
325
[SNGNS]
Members
585 posts
6,824 battles
2 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

The USAF tested track landing gear on the B-36 but it was too heavy & very noisy so the test were abandoned.

image.png.b79aad111d761dc3e993e549995669c4.png

was not Russian enough, comrade!

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,046
[SALVO]
Members
25,789 posts
28,039 battles
38 minutes ago, jager_geist said:

Tanks has artillery and that is also hated over there.

That's because there's a certain percentage of brain dead gamers who think that there's something "unfair" about indirect fire.  And carriers are sort of indirect fire weapons as well, though any regular ship that can lob shells over islands unseen is also acting as an indirect fire weapon.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,402
[SALVO]
Members
2,647 posts
6,773 battles

Indirect  fire   vs  point blanks attacks with no risk  ...... Big difference.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×