Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Starfleet1701

Navyfield1 V.S World of Warships

11 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

169
[LOIN]
Supertester
851 posts

Long before I started playing in Alpha. Actually long before the game even existed. I played a game called Navyfield, more specifically Navyfield: Resurrection of the steel fleet. (AKA Navyfield 1 or AKA Crashfield) it was a fun game but it was old with old graphics. But, it was one the few free to play naval games out there at the time. Navyfield had a different system for tech trees. Destroyers and cruisers were a part of the battleship, Submarine and Carrier lines. Cruisers and destroyers didn't have their own independent line. The highest tier in the game was tier 6. The tech trees were organized like this, 

U.S battleship line (U.S technically has two lines, but jus going to list one to give an example how lines look)

Brooklyn (CL), Cleveland (CL), Baltimore (CA), Alaska (tier 1 BB, I know in this game it's a cruiser but there it's a tier 1 in the BB line. But it's actually one of the best tier 1 battleships in the game), New Mexico (tier 1.5), New Mexico (1944, tier 2) or Colorado, tier 2 (there was a small split there, then unify after that), South Dakota tier 3, Iowa tier 4, Montana tier 5, Nebraska tier 6. 

You're probably thinking wait what's Nebraska? Nebraska is literally completely made up paper design. It's basically an upgunned Iowa, 9 18 inch guns. Armor and guns the player gets to choose what they want to do with their ship. Like they could arm their battleship to have 5 inch main guns, for some reason. 

The company that made Navyfield was SDEthernet. They literally make no attempt to make things historical. Unlike WG actually makes an attempt. Here's examples what SDEthernet did with Navyfield: 

They have premium U.S light cruiser called, Texas, (completely made up, literally isn't based on any paper design) 

They also have a premium U.S battleship that is actually a Russian battleship, with a Russian design and Russian name (Sevastopol). The U.S also has a event CV named, Georgia, yes a CV is named Georgia.

German tier 6 tech tree CV that's named De Grasse, I know a French name. There's also a premium German light cruiser called,  Bayern. (also completely made up not based on any existing paper designs). The Germans have a premium BB named Andrea Doria, (yes the Italian BB is German)

Britain has a event CV named, Queen Mother, (It's literally a Midway, with a different name). They also have a tier 6 tech tree British CV that's.. droomroll please...... Midway. Yes Midway is a tier 6 British CV. The British also a Premium BB that's named, Dunkirk (The French BB, yes its British in this game). 

Oh yeah the Japanese have a tier 6 CV also called De Grasse, to. Which the ship has a German design look.

 

In short Unlike WG, SDE literally makes no attempt when it comes to historical ships and designs. Atleast WG actually makes an attempt by putting a historical name for the design like example the new U.S BBs, Kansas, Minnesota and Vermont. They're all BB designs given names that fits and makes since historically and they're given a design look to be American.

For SDE they use alot designs that make no sense historically, for that nation. They use names for ships that make, no sense historically for the type of ship. 

 

 

I post the pictures of the ships, SDE had. I just mentioned, later. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,139
[TDRB]
Members
5,162 posts
13,743 battles

Years ago I played a game called "Fighting Steel". I remember the much was based on the naval battle in the Solomon Islands.

WG does some things good and falls short on others. But like normal people we focus on the bad and rare say much about the good.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
640
[THREE]
Members
2,151 posts
10,943 battles

I once played a game where all the ship & plane (except Kamikazes) types were balanced...

It was called "Battlestations: Pacific."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,072 posts
43,929 battles

I played Warship Gunner. You could get the historical ship loaded, but you could also build one based on tech tree parts and anything goes on what you put in.

The only limitations was weight. It has tech slots for enhancements like autoloading, engine speed, etc.

It also had conceptual fiction tech too. There were hulls that were based on real ships and also some that were double wide hulls like yamato. 

It had a story arc, but entirely fiction. You could build ships with anything if you were able to advance a tech tree. That was mission based.

The CVs were available in later versions of the game.

The game itself starts out close to historical, but with better targeting. The limitation was damage output of weapon and AOED if a missile.

It can best be described as arcade like and only single player because the internet was not advanced enough for online play. 

The hulls and ship names were historically true, but you could take any ship and swap hulls engines etc.

You could build anything and your imagination was the only true limit.

Its one liability is that you only went up against NPC ships. Some were OP but you could figure out how to beat them.

They even had subs and that user interface was easier to use. 

Koei was the maker, later Namco. Better known for ACE Combat series.

I must have played this game for years tweaking ships and making sea monsters. 

It did not have RNG, only dispersion and damage output. What kept you from steamrolling an objective was you fought by yourself or had some NPC escorts. And your enemy based on difficulty level, was few and all the way to many. 

I still own the games on PS3. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
210
[CRUEL]
Members
526 posts
9,315 battles

Was talking about navy field with my friend tonight. Was an epic grind game with 20 to 30 min que waits. Played for several years. Got pretty good with cvs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
649
[GUYS]
Alpha Tester
2,756 posts
4,221 battles

Oh yeah. I have many, many memories of Navy Field. A few days ago I found myself thinking "Woah, this game is almost the successor to Navy Field." I also still find myself using the phrase "block shot" for when I get a tight grouping. God, back then, Prince of Wales, if spec'd right, could have all it's shells land in the same splash and it was devestating. Armor had a "soft armor" mechanic which could be described best as the armor weakening before breaking, so you could take some hits before starting to truly get hurt. An "auto aiming" system, making your guns fire where you click, not entirely dissimilar to WoWs, and a manual where you could directly dial in your aim.

 

All Ocean, all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,662
Members
2,365 posts
52 battles

Ironically I've heard that a lot of the initial development staff of WoWs was comprised of former NavyField devs. Whether that still holds true I have no idea.
NavyField also inspired WG to make WoT.

As for a comparison between NF and WoWs, I liked the gameplay of NavyField a lot better once you actually reach those higher tiers and could play "with the big boys" because it was a lot more skill-based. The grind was horrendous though.
WoWs meanwhile is ofc miles ahead in terms of presentation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
214
[TSF]
Beta Testers
413 posts
15,325 battles

I played NF for the 5 years after the beta release. That game was based in Korea, and I don't believe WOWS used any developers from there. The lead developer quit just after beta, and he was a spaghetti code programmer. Must updates required several more updates to get the game back in playable form.

I found most games, after a long wait to fill the field (several games could be waiting for players at the same time, and incoming players could choose their team) consisted of BBs sailing back and fourth in a line at extreme range from the opposition BB line. CVs would scout and make attacks from behind the BB line, wile CAs, DDs, and subs would make thrusts and engage their counterparts with guns, torps, and mines.

The game also had a trading room, which generated lots of conflicts, frauds, and under the counter cash deals for Captains, equipment, and ships.

I'm a naval history buff, and I loved the game, in spite of its flaws. But it degraded in the last two years I played, with vast numbers of non-English speaking players, and rampant cheating. When many of my Red Sky clanmates left to play WOT, I joined them.

I jumped into WOWS as soon as I could get into CBT, and found this game to be far better, at that point than NF was after 5 years. We have problems, but unless a better Naval History based game comes along, I'm here for the duration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,347
[WOLFG]
Members
32,219 posts
9,984 battles

 

On 9/8/2020 at 1:34 AM, Starfleet1701 said:

German tier 6 tech tree CV that's named De Grasse, I know a French name. 

That one's actually not far off. De Grasse was captured in port in 1940, and was intended to be converted into a CV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,347
[WOLFG]
Members
32,219 posts
9,984 battles

I think the way NF did things was a tradeoff compared to WoWS.

In NF, a DD had very little chance against a BB, but there were plenty of other DDs and CLs to fight with. Keep in mind Grand Battles were 30 vs. 30, with usually no more than (IIRC) 2 CV and 4 BB per side. (and those were often the last ships to die)

One thing I liked was that the room host did the MM. (if he was honest that is) Battle parameters could be anything you could think of. You don't want CVs, no CVs. You want to swap ships to balance, no problem. You don't want "ringers", (low level ships with high level gunners and such) you put a level cap on the room. You want a DD only free for all, have at it.

One of my favorites were Clan X vs. all. A clan would have 15 or so members on one team, and the other would be whatever showed up. 

I kind of miss that game, the aiming system, spotting, customisation, (I loved my Atlanta with 6 dual 6" guns) all worked really well IMO. The graphics were serviceable enough, and pretty well done for sprites.

Greed really killed that game though. That's why I chuckle when people say WG will kill WoWS with greed, or that WG are the greediest devs they've seen.

They haven't seen the elephant lol.

Edited by Skpstr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,347
[WOLFG]
Members
32,219 posts
9,984 battles
On 9/8/2020 at 1:24 PM, CaptnAndy said:

I played NF for the 5 years after the beta release. 

Heh, the crapstorm that happened when SDE told us they were going to reset our progress upon release was epic. Every protest we've ever had here pales by comparison lol.

On 9/8/2020 at 1:24 PM, CaptnAndy said:

The game also had a trading room, which generated lots of conflicts, frauds, and under the counter cash deals for Captains, equipment, and ships.

Yeah, it's too bad that kind of stuff went on. I loved that part of the game. (once I learned how to detect power levelled crewmembers anyway)

On 9/8/2020 at 1:24 PM, CaptnAndy said:

I'm a naval history buff, and I loved the game, in spite of its flaws. But it degraded in the last two years I played, with vast numbers of non-English speaking players, and rampant cheating. When many of my Red Sky clanmates left to play WOT, I joined them.

I didn't see much of that, I was gone just before subs, just after they started selling base 13 sailors.

On 9/8/2020 at 1:24 PM, CaptnAndy said:

I jumped into WOWS as soon as I could get into CBT, and found this game to be far better, at that point than NF was after 5 years. We have problems, but unless a better Naval History based game comes along, I'm here for the duration.

I find WoWS very enjoyable, but still remember NF fondly. I'd love to see a game that combined the best attributes of both.

And I dunno, maybe it's just viewing the past through rose-coloured glasses, but I don't remember the chat being as nasty as it can get here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×