Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Sabot_100

Warts

10 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,144
[CVA16]
Members
8,393 posts
25,508 battles

Lots of discussions of how fantasy ships are, in general, better than their real life competitors. Part of this is bias (if you could design your own girlfriend, it would probably be different than your real girlfriend/wife/other (I know, the PC answer is your current squeeze IS the perfect girlfriend/boyfriend/etc. ) and likely better  than the one you would design for someone else. One of the differences I do notice is real ships have WARTS. Like the glacial speed of US BBs, US cruisers don't have torps,, ships with bad gun arrangements/angles  Myokos ridiculous torp angles,  or no AA on ships facing aircraft). While a game designer working with a napkin sketch or a dream list of  requirements is free to say, that's stupid, we'll adjust things to a more practical set-up. There is no trade off for armor vs speed. No budget or resource restrictions. 

I know if I was the captain assigned to the Myoko in this WG universe, one of my first orders is for guys with cutting torches to widen the torpedo apertures so you aren't stuck shooting behind you.  Structural integrity be damned.

 

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,144
[CVA16]
Members
8,393 posts
25,508 battles
1 hour ago, Kuckoo said:

Not the G-kind of warts,

Nope, just the kind they airbrush out for portraits. Most people have 'em. Most real ships  have 'em. Fantasy ships are the airbrushed version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,296
[NSC]
Members
2,662 posts
3 hours ago, Sabot_100 said:

I know if I was the captain assigned to the Myoko in this WG universe, one of my first orders is for guys with cutting torches to widen the torpedo apertures so you aren't stuck shooting behind you.  Structural integrity be damned.

Torpedoes can turn in real-life, unlike in WoWS (not talking about sub torpedoes), so the "limitation" from torpedo angles wasn't a problem in real-life. Cutting up a ship you command like this would be unnecessary.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
227
[DRAH]
Members
536 posts
13,518 battles

That is because the fantasy ships don't have to deal with logistical and physical issues that the real ships did.

I am fairly sure that most of the fantasy ships you refer to would be several of the following bad things: Overweight, Unstable, Cramped and unlivable, Overly wet, Roll like pigs, or have an effective range at full speed that would make a WW1 biplane blush. These are things that constrained designs a LOT in the real world. 

In game the high freeboard of the UK heavy cruisers is a detriment as it is a huge unmissable target. In Real life it gave them superior speed in any kinds of sea state beyond flat calm compared to the "Faster" designs of other navies like Italy who ran trials without even guns mounted. It also gave a much more spacious living area for the crews as they were ships designed for global deployment. Most of the Soviet ships for example are only designed for a couple of weeks on board and then back to shore-side barracks.

In another example  HMS Hood was so overweight that almost all her belt was submerged, she took green water over the bow in almost every sea state and as a result was miserably wet inside and the men were very prone to lung infections like pneumonia. The crew unloving nicknamed her "His Majesties Submarine Hood" as a result .

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,144
[CVA16]
Members
8,393 posts
25,508 battles
14 hours ago, Ellyh said:

Most of the Soviet ships for example are only designed for a couple of weeks on board and then back to shore-side barracks.

Yeah, the Okhotnik in particular seems like a ship that would be useless outside a calm harbor at low speed. That long back deck would be awash. No way  those guns would be of any use. Gunners would be in danger of washing overboard (note most contemporary low slung ships, like the Clemson, had the guns mounted up on deck houses or in gun tubs). Water would be pouring into the shell handling rooms trying to feed shells to the guns too. Gun angles would be very limited as your 130mm gun muzzles trained too far fore or aft would be in the backs of the adjacent gunners. In game there some pretty generous arcs. Overall a fairly unseaworthy design. Like I said, no warts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,144
[CVA16]
Members
8,393 posts
25,508 battles
16 hours ago, henrychenhenry said:

Torpedoes can turn in real-life, unlike in WoWS (not talking about sub torpedoes), so the "limitation" from torpedo angles wasn't a problem in real-life. Cutting up a ship you command like this would be unnecessary.

True, IRL you could shoot your port torps at a target to starboard. Not recommended, but you could. But in the WOWS universe, only subs torps can turn. Therefore the cutting torches. On the plus side, WG torps always run straight (mostly). They don't go off in odd directions or decide to come back to you when the gyro is really screwed up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,038 posts
2,869 battles
On 6/22/2020 at 9:43 AM, Sabot_100 said:

On the plus side, WG torps always run straight (mostly).

Well now you have piqued my interest with that "mostly."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,144
[CVA16]
Members
8,393 posts
25,508 battles
2 hours ago, black_hull4 said:

Well now you have piqued my interest with that "mostly.

I was referring to the large gaps that sometimes appear in other wise uniform spreads. After that initial heading, they seem to go straight. Some shells on the other hand definitely seem to make course changes along the way. Could be the effects of sigma being applied or could be just an observation bias on my part. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×