Jump to content
PrinceOfTheOcean

What sort of logical problems would Wargaming encounter trying to add new tiers?

17 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
92 posts
1,030 battles

Shower thoughts!

So even though I haven't gotten a tier 10 yet I was wondering what it was like for the players who have all the Tier 10s and don't want to regrind the lines. So I asked myself, why hasn't WarGaming added ships that are post-World War 2? I couldn't think of anything other than the fact that the armament for airplanes becomes missiles only, and that they have to develop a new line of guided missile ships. Are there any reasons why WarGaming has not extended the tier lines?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
635
[IND8]
[IND8]
Members
791 posts
9,648 battles

For starters, there were no more Battleships. Vanguard, Jean Bart, and the Iowas were the end of the line, and the only reason we even have a historical tier 10 in game is because the Yamatos were ahead of everyone else (Yes naval aviation killed it, but it took an unbelievable amount of planes attacking it at once to put it down, more fleet carriers attacking a single target than an other action in naval history). That said, the line between Cruiser and Destroyer also starts to blur the further from WWII you get. That said, for several years afterward, the bulk of our frontline cruisers were refitted wartime cruisers, with new missile technology. At the same time, many European countries weren't building new warships, because they had to rebuild their industrial infrastructure. France kept their Aircraft Carrier, Baern, in service way past it's intended operational lifetime right up into the 1970s, and it was a contemporary of Akagi, Kaga, Lexington, and Saratoga. Even the Russians spent most of their resources building submarines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,512
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
25,699 posts
14,007 battles
16 minutes ago, PrinceOfTheOcean said:

Shower thoughts!

So even though I haven't gotten a tier 10 yet I was wondering what it was like for the players who have all the Tier 10s and don't want to regrind the lines. So I asked myself, why hasn't WarGaming added ships that are post-World War 2? I couldn't think of anything other than the fact that the armament for airplanes becomes missiles only, and that they have to develop a new line of guided missile ships. Are there any reasons why WarGaming has not extended the tier lines?

There are post WWII ships in the game but there are not that many that can fit the gun style combat the game is built on. If they were going to add more tiers I would like to see them go into sub tiers with the pre-Dreadnought era which would from what I have seen here would be quite popular.

  • Cool 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,400
[RKLES]
Members
12,478 posts
14,198 battles

If you went higher a few tiers you would run into the same issues as with tanks where the more modern tanks often thinned the armor considerably as Anti tank weapons had progressed so much that super thick armor could not save them. So they went with weapons that could have higher pen, and more mobile platforms for them. So WWII tank vs Cold War tanks are fun because smaller shells in some cases, definitely less armor protection so they are not as likely to bounce your shells while you can often enough bounce theirs.

Warships likely would run into similar issues I would think. Unless instead of moving into more modern ships they instead went lower and pursued Pre Dreadnoughts in which case you still would have the levels of firepower and armaments be more balanced at least for a while as you went farther and farther back in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,512
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
25,699 posts
14,007 battles
34 minutes ago, Shannon_Lindsey said:

For starters, there were no more Battleships. Vanguard, Jean Bart, and the Iowas were the end of the line, and the only reason we even have a historical tier 10 in game is because the Yamatos were ahead of everyone else (Yes naval aviation killed it, but it took an unbelievable amount of planes attacking it at once to put it down, more fleet carriers attacking a single target than an other action in naval history). That said, the line between Cruiser and Destroyer also starts to blur the further from WWII you get. That said, for several years afterward, the bulk of our frontline cruisers were refitted wartime cruisers, with new missile technology. At the same time, many European countries weren't building new warships, because they had to rebuild their industrial infrastructure. France kept their Aircraft Carrier, Baern, in service way past it's intended operational lifetime right up into the 1970s, and it was a contemporary of Akagi, Kaga, Lexington, and Saratoga. Even the Russians spent most of their resources building submarines.

Actually the Yamato wasn't ahead at all it was simply extremely huge and heavily armored and while it took a lot to put it down it was unable to effectively fight, some times known as a mission kill, long before she sank.

Edited by BrushWolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,328
[WORX]
Members
9,823 posts
17,806 battles
  • Power Creep issues
  • Ordnance discrimination issues
  • Disproportional in-game play issues
  • more disparity in ships armor instead of armor uniformity.
  • Ala NTC all over again

I know there is a shipping list of issues as to why adding more tiers is a problem. These were tops on my list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,000
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,931 posts
11,407 battles
1 hour ago, PrinceOfTheOcean said:

armament for airplanes becomes missiles only

Very, VERY false. The ONLY time any aircraft I can think of was 'missiles only' is during Vietnam when they removed the cannons from F4 Phantom's because they thought, incorrectly, that guns had become obsolete. And even that was still inaccurate to say as the F4 could still carry bombs, rockets, etc. The only plane type that would be gone moving into the late 60's/early 70's is non-ASW torpedo bombers. These would be replaced by something carrying an Anti-ship missile all likelihood. But that would take Wargaming having to use a system similar to the nonsense subs had last we saw to ping targets (acquire radar lock in this case) that's usable on a plane, as well as some form of countermeasure to jam the radar or make it missiles can be shot down (because even the Exocet's mentioned in Top Gun were a sub-sonic missile). Though damage would likely not be too crazy - or at least no craier than any ordnance now as most of the air launched ones that would be on a CV seem to have 500 lb or less Warheads (making them maybe equal to some torpedoes, less than even some of the tier 6 CV's bombs for max damage). And that assumes we don't just lower it because it's a freaking missile. I'd also assume they don't have super accurate snap direction changes do maneuvering may also be an option.

But Rocket attacks and Dive bombing would still be a thing. As would use of fighters with guns.

1 hour ago, PrinceOfTheOcean said:

they have to develop a new line of guided missile ships

I believe 3 years ago now they tried to develop missile cruisers for tier 10-ish given the first of those is late 50's, however it did not pan out with what they tried - and based on how they talked about one of the ideas being controlling the missiles and that they had the 'basics' of the rework from something else they tested and lying about - I'm guessing that what they tried ended up becoming the CV rework as well as a prototype to Submarines guided torps from some of the other things they tried. I believe the GMC's were talked about in a video but no memory what the title was or where to even start that search. But ship-ship anti ship missiles is where you start getting a tad crazy in potential damage. At least ASM's have small enough warheads to keep damage in check. 

 

Beyond that they have a rule no 'super carriers' or angled decks. Frankly, at this point - the angled decks rule is just stupid with us limited to one group. As for super carriers - I'm inclined to agree on modern super carriers (why when I talk of adding Forrestal I say her original design before the angled deck and all in which technically she does not meet the definition of 'super carrier' and I say 'modern' because Shinano could potentially be considered one and it should be put back in the game). However many carriers have very limited air defence beyond their fighters (which are already a balancing nightmare at the moment) at the point we'd be talking tier 11 and 12, not to mention the way they are constructed actually kinda takes a lot to sink one. Battleships effectively disappear, what few last past the war really take up the role of cruisers helping cover with AA guns or are really there for shore bombardment/anti-ship if anything gets in range. DD's and cruisers remain - but the line really starts to blur. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,474
[1984]
Members
3,935 posts
18,961 battles
36 minutes ago, WanderingGhost said:

Very, VERY false. The ONLY time any aircraft I can think of was 'missiles only' is during Vietnam when they removed the cannons from F4 Phantom's because they thought, incorrectly, that guns had become obsolete. And even that was still inaccurate to say as the F4 could still carry bombs, rockets, etc. The only plane type that would be gone moving into the late 60's/early 70's is non-ASW torpedo bombers. These would be replaced by something carrying an Anti-ship missile all likelihood. But that would take Wargaming having to use a system similar to the nonsense subs had last we saw to ping targets (acquire radar lock in this case) that's usable on a plane, as well as some form of countermeasure to jam the radar or make it missiles can be shot down (because even the Exocet's mentioned in Top Gun were a sub-sonic missile). Though damage would likely not be too crazy - or at least no craier than any ordnance now as most of the air launched ones that would be on a CV seem to have 500 lb or less Warheads (making them maybe equal to some torpedoes, less than even some of the tier 6 CV's bombs for max damage). And that assumes we don't just lower it because it's a freaking missile. I'd also assume they don't have super accurate snap direction changes do maneuvering may also be an option.

But Rocket attacks and Dive bombing would still be a thing. As would use of fighters with guns.

I believe 3 years ago now they tried to develop missile cruisers for tier 10-ish given the first of those is late 50's, however it did not pan out with what they tried - and based on how they talked about one of the ideas being controlling the missiles and that they had the 'basics' of the rework from something else they tested and lying about - I'm guessing that what they tried ended up becoming the CV rework as well as a prototype to Submarines guided torps from some of the other things they tried. I believe the GMC's were talked about in a video but no memory what the title was or where to even start that search. But ship-ship anti ship missiles is where you start getting a tad crazy in potential damage. At least ASM's have small enough warheads to keep damage in check. 

 

Beyond that they have a rule no 'super carriers' or angled decks. Frankly, at this point - the angled decks rule is just stupid with us limited to one group. As for super carriers - I'm inclined to agree on modern super carriers (why when I talk of adding Forrestal I say her original design before the angled deck and all in which technically she does not meet the definition of 'super carrier' and I say 'modern' because Shinano could potentially be considered one and it should be put back in the game). However many carriers have very limited air defence beyond their fighters (which are already a balancing nightmare at the moment) at the point we'd be talking tier 11 and 12, not to mention the way they are constructed actually kinda takes a lot to sink one. Battleships effectively disappear, what few last past the war really take up the role of cruisers helping cover with AA guns or are really there for shore bombardment/anti-ship if anything gets in range. DD's and cruisers remain - but the line really starts to blur. 

Clearly he means the missiles only for attack. That the planes may have guns for self defense is fine but youre not going to see a hornet strafing a ship.  Nor will you see one dropping a bomb on a ship or a torpedo. Todays plane launched anti shipping weapons are missiles.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
422
[ICBM]
Members
739 posts
8,528 battles

I would be more interested in going the opposite direction to a sail-and-cannon simulator built in the WOWS stye.

Edited by mrieder79
  • Cool 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,000
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,931 posts
11,407 battles
11 hours ago, monpetitloup said:

Clearly he means the missiles only for attack. That the planes may have guns for self defense is fine but youre not going to see a hornet strafing a ship.  Nor will you see one dropping a bomb on a ship or a torpedo. Todays plane launched anti shipping weapons are missiles.

 

The Hornet isn't a thing till the mid 80's which honestly, I think is a bit modern for Wargaming. Odds are if they were to expand more to the post war ships he's talking about, your talking later 50's up to maybe the 70's. In which missiles are an option, but not everyone had the same ones at the same time for air launch, and the technology was still new and not super reliable. And even if the preferred weapon today is an anti-ship missile, does not change that the F-18 still carries bombs (both smart and dumb) and rockets that could be used to attack a ship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,474
[1984]
Members
3,935 posts
18,961 battles
4 minutes ago, WanderingGhost said:

The Hornet isn't a thing till the mid 80's which honestly, I think is a bit modern for Wargaming. Odds are if they were to expand more to the post war ships he's talking about, your talking later 50's up to maybe the 70's. In which missiles are an option, but not everyone had the same ones at the same time for air launch, and the technology was still new and not super reliable. And even if the preferred weapon today is an anti-ship missile, does not change that the F-18 still carries bombs (both smart and dumb) and rockets that could be used to attack a ship. 

while i take your point for the 50s - 70s, bombs are useless in the modern navy for attacking ships. the reason being the advanced SAM defense systems on said ships which render a bombing run on a ship suicidal. the point of missiles is they are launched from beyond the horizon and strike thier targets while the launching plane remains relatively safe. this is impossible to accomplish with aricraft carrier based bombers. the bombs carried by sea launched aircraft are meant for striking fixed targets on land (or ground support, God bless the Jolly Green).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,474
[1984]
Members
3,935 posts
18,961 battles
6 hours ago, mrieder79 said:

I would be more interested in going the opposite direction to a sail-and-cannon simulator built in the WOWS stye.

now this is something i would love.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
92 posts
1,030 battles

Thanks guys, I now realie the problems. As others have mentioned, I would like to see a age of sail type game. That would be fun.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
71
[USMC_]
Members
265 posts
16,283 battles
On 3/25/2020 at 10:14 PM, PrinceOfTheOcean said:

Shower thoughts!

So even though I haven't gotten a tier 10 yet I was wondering what it was like for the players who have all the Tier 10s and don't want to regrind the lines. So I asked myself, why hasn't WarGaming added ships that are post-World War 2? I couldn't think of anything other than the fact that the armament for airplanes becomes missiles only, and that they have to develop a new line of guided missile ships. Are there any reasons why WarGaming has not extended the tier lines?

Dont even go there, they cant balance what they have as it is!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
92 posts
1,030 battles
1 hour ago, SaltyRat said:

Dont even go there, they cant balance what they have as it is!

Fair point, low tier CVs are broken as most ships don't even have AA and just become target practice for CVs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19
[WOLF1]
Members
138 posts
926 battles

Adds Vasa into game, and if you turn too hard you immediately capsize and sink:Smile_trollface:

Edited by Boomer625

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
615
[WOLFC]
Members
1,325 posts
8,504 battles
On 3/26/2020 at 1:34 AM, Shannon_Lindsey said:

Vanguard, Jean Bart, and the Iowas were the end of the line, and the only reason we even have a historical tier 10 in game is because the Yamatos were ahead of everyone else (Yes naval aviation killed it, but it took an unbelievable amount of planes attacking it at once to put it down, more fleet carriers attacking a single target than an other action in naval history).

 

On 3/26/2020 at 2:08 AM, BrushWolf said:

Actually the Yamato wasn't ahead at all it was simply extremely huge and heavily armored and while it took a lot to put it down it was unable to effectively fight, some times known as a mission kill, long before she sank.

^This.

There’s this myth that the Yamatos were these super tough ships because it “took so many planes” to put them down. In reality, the USN threw so many planes at them not because they needed to, but rather because they had the capability to do so at that point in the war.

There’s no kill like overkill.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×