Should tier limits exist?

[Battleship_Unknown2]

We've been discussing this topic off and on in a couple of threads, but I frankly think it's a pressing issue that deserves some serious discussion on its own (and it's not off-topic in the slightest, which is a nice change of pace).

 

First, I want to say that I understand that a lot of players are coming into WoWS with either A) not a strong naval background, or B) a lot of experience in WoT, or both. However, I think it's important for everyone to set B) aside for a second before taking this poll and realize that ships are not tanks. IE, a tank from 1919 that would be wholly outclassed by mid 1942 is not a battleship, or a battlecruiser or an aircraft carrier. These ships -- and particularly battleships and battlecruisers -- cost an unbelievable amount of money to design and build. They couldn't be idly thrown away.

 

To put that statement in context, when the Ottoman Empire originally ordered two dreadnoughts from Britain in 1911 and 1913, it nearly bankrupted the Turks:

 

Quote

"The two battleships had cost the impovershed nation almost £6 million. Some of the money had been borrowed from bankers in Paris and some came from taxes -- on sheep and wool, on tobacco, and on bread. In January of 1914, all December salaries of civil servants, none yet paid, were diverted to pay for the ships. But still more money was needed. Every Turkish town and village contributed; women sold their hair to raise money; collection boxes were placed on bridges across the Golden Horn and on ferryboats plying the Bosporus. Purchase of the two dreadnoughts became a unifying national cause." -- Robert K. Massie, Castles of Steel

It would be an astounding understatement to say the things weren't cheap. And they were expected to last for decades. When Britain revoked the sale of the two dreadnoughts in the eleventh hour (a major contributing factor in driving the Turks into the Great War), the Germans sold them SMS Goeben -- a first-generation battlecruiser that was still sailing for the Turkish Navy in the 1960s. WWI ships of all classes were everywhere in WWII -- from destroyers, to cruisers, to carriers, to battlecruisers and battleships.

 

Need facts? Here you go:

 

Of the frontline capital vessels sailing for Britian at the start of WWII, we have the following:

 

5 Queen Elizabeths, launched 1913-1915

5 Revenges, launched 1914-1916

1 Hood, launched 1918

2 Renowns, launched 1916

2 Nelsons, launched 1925

2 (of an eventual 5) King George Vs, launched 1939

 

Carriers included 3 converted WWI light battlecruisers, 1 converted WWI battleship,1 small, purpose-built carrier, 1 tiny, slow flattop, and 1 medium, purpose-built carrier.

 

And you see the same thing in almost every modern navy of the era. Look at the list of U.S. battleships active at the time; look at the list of Japanese capital ships. The fact of the matter is, the bulk of the warships that each power entered WWII fielding were decades old.

 

***

 

I am in favor of no restrictions on the ships allowed into any game -- only on classes, and the total 'strength' of a team. People are going to talk about old guns; old powerplants; old fire control; old ordinance -- I do not care; it's by in large rubbish. HMS Vanguard, the last British BB ever built, who didn't even see war service, was armed with 25-year-old recycled guns. Most American and British and Italian and Japanese battleships and battlecruisers were floating around with guns of the same age (or at least designed in the same timeframe).

 

People are going to say 'well what about those German BBs and BCs from WWI? They only had 11" and 12" guns. What harm could they do?' I dunno. What harm could Scharnhorst and Gniesenau do? They only had 11" guns, too, and yet are a favorite on these forums (and may have scored the longest combat shell hit of all time, though this is up for debate). Look at the demise of IJN Hiei -- peppered into oblivion by 5" guns -- shouldn't she have had nothing to fear from weapons of that caliber? Isn't that a case study in the fact that even Yamato might have to look out for an enemy ship or two armed with 11" or 12" guns? Even Bismarck herself couldn't be brought down by sustained shelling -- but she was an utter wreck by the end of combat (and probably sank as a result of scuttling). But she (he, if you follow the German standard) is proof that you don't have to sink a dreadnought to kill it.

 

The 1920s and 1930s saw a widespread culling of earlier battleship designs, not because those designs were utterly useless, but because the Washington Naval Treaty dictated strict limits on the tonnage of a given fleet, and so only the newest ships were retained. Some very fine warships -- Tiger, Iron Duke, Delaware, and so on and so forth were cut down in this timeframe, not because they were totally obsolete, but because they weren't quite as good as the slightly newer ones.

 

Shells -- explosive and AP -- did see refinements between the wars, but that doesn't preclude an older ship from firing them. Armor schemes, even in most newer ships, were not drastically altered or revolutionized. Radar was developed, yes, but it was fitted to old ships, too. Coal-burning ships were upgraded to burn oil. Some had their powerplants upgraded so they could sail faster, most did not, however. The vast majority of large warships sailing around in 1939 were still puttering along between 21 and 24 knots. Speedier boats like the Iowa were an enormous exception and not a rule.

 

There should be no restrictions present. If someone wants to enter a game sailing Moltke, or Princess Royal (yes, I am named after a boat) or Gangut, or USS Florida, or any of the dozens of WWI cruisers or destroyers (many of which bravely fought in WWII), let them. Develop a system that allows them to play that way. Develop that system, not only because it is historically accurate, but because it would be more fun, more random, and more exciting. And isn't that the final arbiter of what should be put into a video game?

 

*Edit* Poll editted slightly to be more specific.

[MM2ss]

The option I would choose is not available.

 

I would favor some sort of tier limit.  Not because an older ship "doesn't stand a chance" however.  Now, in WoT, we see about a + or - 2 spreed from the middle tier, which in WoT makes good sense, but in WoWS I believe would not be needed.  I would suggest a wider range being used.  Perhaps + or - 4.  Now, if they did engage and fight broadside to broadside, could a tier II kill or cripple a tier X?  In theory, yes.  But consider that the older BB's lacked range, speed, and armor protection when compared to the newest examples.  To me, that would suggest that the Montana would have little to worry about if it decided to engage HMS Dreadnought.

 

Montana can theoretically pierce the belt of Dreadnought at any range less than or equal to 40,000 yards (Maximum thickness of the belt of Dreadnought is 11").  Dreadnought may fail to penetrate the thickest portions of the Montana's belt even at 0 yards (side armor penetration is 16", the thickest portion of Montana's belt is 16.1" and it is inclined, so effectively it is even thicker than that).  If we hope for hits on the lower belt, we are looking at 7", inclined at 10 degrees, If I did my calculations right, the Dreadnought would likely fail to pierce the lower belt at maximum range for the 12"/45 Mark X, which is 20.435 yards.

 

So, if the Dreadnought got close enough, she could possibly hurt the Montana.  However, Montana has higher speed and so can control the engagement range (7 knots is a noticeable difference in favor of Montana), the Montana can poke holes in the Dreadnought's belt at almost double the maximum range of Dreadnought's guns, and can send plunging fire through Dreadnought's decks starting at 20,000 yards and all the way out to the maximum range of the 16"/50 Mark 7, which is 42,345 yards.

 

Thus, I would not want to see a Dreadnought vs Montana fight.  However, Dreadnought could hold her own against say an Iron Duke or Queen Elizabeth class.  I'd say the Revenge class would be towards the upper limit of where Dreadnought would be putting up a respectable fight.  Once we get to the Nelson's, second set of King George V's, and so on, the Dreadnought is, in my opinion, vastly outclassed, in terms of speed, armor, and range.  So long as she can match two of those factors, I'd say she is good to go, matching in one, she has a chance, not being even close in all three, she is out of luck unless the opposing skipper is, shall we say, not the sharpest tool in the shed.

[Battleship_Unknown2]

MM2ss, on 17 February 2013 - 11:56 PM, said:

The option I would choose is not available.

I would favor some sort of tier limit.  Not because an older ship "doesn't stand a chance" however.  Now, in WoT, we see about a + or - 2 spreed from the middle tier, which in WoT makes good sense, but in WoWS I believe would not be needed.  I would suggest a wider range being used.  Perhaps + or - 4.  Now, if they did engage and fight broadside to broadside, could a tier II kill or cripple a tier X?  In theory, yes.  But consider that the older BB's lacked range, speed, and armor protection when compared to the newest examples.  To me, that would suggest that the Montana would have little to worry about if it decided to engage HMS Dreadnought.

Montana can theoretically pierce the belt of Dreadnought at any range less than or equal to 40,000 yards (Maximum thickness of the belt of Dreadnought is 11").  Dreadnought may fail to penetrate the thickest portions of the Montana's belt even at 0 yards (side armor penetration is 16", the thickest portion of Montana's belt is 16.1" and it is inclined, so effectively it is even thicker than that).  If we hope for hits on the lower belt, we are looking at 7", inclined at 10 degrees, If I did my calculations right, the Dreadnought would likely fail to pierce the lower belt at maximum range for the 12"/45 Mark X, which is 20.435 yards.

So, if the Dreadnought got close enough, she could possibly hurt the Montana.  However, Montana has higher speed and so can control the engagement range (7 knots is a noticeable difference in favor of Montana), the Montana can poke holes in the Dreadnought's belt at almost double the maximum range of Dreadnought's guns, and can send plunging fire through Dreadnought's decks starting at 20,000 yards and all the way out to the maximum range of the 16"/50 Mark 7, which is 42,345 yards.

Thus, I would not want to see a Dreadnought vs Montana fight.  However, Dreadnought could hold her own against say an Iron Duke or Queen Elizabeth class.  I'd say the Revenge class would be towards the upper limit of where Dreadnought would be putting up a respectable fight.  Once we get to the Nelson's, second set of King George V's, and so on, the Dreadnought is, in my opinion, vastly outclassed, in terms of speed, armor, and range.  So long as she can match two of those factors, I'd say she is good to go, matching in one, she has a chance, not being even close in all three, she is out of luck unless the opposing skipper is, shall we say, not the sharpest tool in the shed.

I don't like 'middleground' poll options. I'm sorry -- it's something I'm just opposed to. I think people are often inclined to hedge their bets in any poll, and if you give them the chance to do so, they will choose the path of least resistance. It's a plague in our modern society that people are frequently unwilling to pick a side.

Also, to your theoretical Dreadnought vs. Montana fight -- that's all fine and dandy, except things like this were still sailing around in WWII. Gangut was no better armed, armored, or speedy than Dreadnought. Thus, she might have fought a theoretical Montana (which is an interesting example to cite, considering that it is already an act of fantasy to include such 'what ifs' in the game -- we seem to be willing to stretch theory one way, but not another). The question here was as clear-cut as they come: either a ship is too old and obsolete and its inclusion is not fair, or we follow a vast range of historical presidence that shows that navies at the time were giving very little consideration to 'fairness,' but simply fielding every ship at their disposal because a war was on.

*Edit* Also, I want to add that it's somewhat silly to think that our theoretical Dreadnought will always be shooting at our theoretical Montana. Dreadnought and Montana would both be in the company of other ships in WoWS, and if those ships were relatively coordinated, Montana would likely being shot at by something bigger than Dreadnought, while Dreadnought would likely be targeting something smaller than Montana. The 'one on one, I'll meet you in five minutes in the back alley so we can settle the score' fight is nonsense, at least in this game.

[brian333]

I concede the point. Princess Royal is correct. However, the WW1 ships that fought in WW2 were modernized in several ways to keep them viable. The coal to oil conversions are irrelevant: we won't need to stop off at Ascension Island to take on coal during a battle. More important are the fire control systems developed and implemented along with upgrades to AA and other secondary weapons systems. Downgrades, such as the USN's removal of torpedoes from cruisers, are less important, perhaps, but could play a factor in the viability of an older ship in a battle.

 

I tend to think that tiers should be developed more with an eye to time period than to virtually any other factor. Let the QE's fight alongside the Dakotas, but only when they have the upgrades that made them viable in similar time periods.

 

Thus we might have the 1915 version with casemate guns. Then a 'first modernization' version with increased deck armor, added torpedo belt, and AA installed. Finally, a 'final conversion' in which the superstructure was re-worked to include DP secondaries as well as improved fire control. I imagine this ship might conceivably begin at Tier III, upgrade to Tier V, and finally top out at Tier VII. (This is an example, I really don't know what will tier where, so feel free to adjust up or down as you like.)

 

In this tiering system you could pit the QE against the Tirpitz if you wanted to, but it would be the QE that was on the water at the time of the Tirpitz.

[MM2ss]

I fully understand the concept and the dislike for a "middle ground" option.  I tend to not like them for myself.  I cited the Montana and Dreadnought strictly for one reason, they were the vessels that appear to represent the extremes of the BB lines that will be in game.

 

I could re-figure some of the numbers using the Iowa, which appears likely to be a tier IX, but I doubt the results would change much.

 

If we have a tier limited system, then including Dreadnought is all fine and dandy.  If we go with a no-tier-limit system, then I'd think the Dreadnought would rapidly become a fairly useless vessel.

 

Now, if we assume a tier limited system will be used, we end up discussing what the tier range should be.  If we go to the no-limit system, we have to discuss what ships should or should not be included.

 

Did navies field every ship available?  Yes, but they also fielded them in rolls that tended to be suitable for the capabilities of the vessel.  If I am hunting down the main battleship force of the Imperial Navy, I will be using high speed BB's.  If I am doing coastal bombardments, any BB will work.  If we are talking about escort duty, then slower BB's are very suitable, as they only need to keep up with a convoy.

 

Now, as I said, if the Dreadnought got into effective range, she could hurt the Montana.  So, much like the Battle of Surigao Strait, where in theory, none of the American BB's should have been able to catch the Japanese BB's present, did inflict severe damage on the enemy force, because the enemy force came into the range of the US vessels.  That being the case, if the Iowa or Montana decided to get in close to the Dreadnought, then the Dreadnought could potentially do substantial damage to either vessel.  However, Dreadnought would not be able to force action on either of those ships, by virtue of her speed, which is nicely suited for keeping up with her contemporaries, but is unsuited for tracking down fast battleships (Iowa for example) or even the latter versions of slower but extremely well armored battleships Yamato, Montana, etc).

 

I think where we have to draw a line is actually at the point of fairness.  Yes, in a war I will take every fair and unfair advantage I can, I will lie, cheat, steal, etc etc etc to get an edge over an enemy.  In a game however, I think fairness is important.  We have two ways to get to that point, tier limits, or no limits with ships that are all competitive (at least to some degree) with each other regardless of tier.  If we go with that second concept, the next logical question would be, if I can fight a tier X with a tier II and expect a reasonable chance (not necessarily a good chance) of winning, why would I want to grind to a tier X?

[Scootaloo23]

Yes.

[Battleship_Unknown2]

MM2ss, on 18 February 2013 - 12:32 AM, said:

I fully understand the concept and the dislike for a "middle ground" option.  I tend to not like them for myself.  I cited the Montana and Dreadnought strictly for one reason, they were the vessels that appear to represent the extremes of the BB lines that will be in game.

I could re-figure some of the numbers using the Iowa, which appears likely to be a tier IX, but I doubt the results would change much.

If we have a tier limited system, then including Dreadnought is all fine and dandy.  If we go with a no-tier-limit system, then I'd think the Dreadnought would rapidly become a fairly useless vessel.

Now, if we assume a tier limited system will be used, we end up discussing what the tier range should be.  If we go to the no-limit system, we have to discuss what ships should or should not be included.

Did navies field every ship available?  Yes, but they also fielded them in rolls that tended to be suitable for the capabilities of the vessel.  If I am hunting down the main battleship force of the Imperial Navy, I will be using high speed BB's.  If I am doing coastal bombardments, any BB will work.  If we are talking about escort duty, then slower BB's are very suitable, as they only need to keep up with a convoy.

Now, as I said, if the Dreadnought got into effective range, she could hurt the Montana.  So, much like the Battle of Surigao Strait, where in theory, none of the American BB's should have been able to catch the Japanese BB's present, did inflict severe damage on the enemy force, because the enemy force came into the range of the US vessels.  That being the case, if the Iowa or Montana decided to get in close to the Dreadnought, then the Dreadnought could potentially do substantial damage to either vessel.  However, Dreadnought would not be able to force action on either of those ships, by virtue of her speed, which is nicely suited for keeping up with her contemporaries, but is unsuited for tracking down fast battleships (Iowa for example) or even the latter versions of slower but extremely well armored battleships Yamato, Montana, etc).

I think where we have to draw a line is actually at the point of fairness.  Yes, in a war I will take every fair and unfair advantage I can, I will lie, cheat, steal, etc etc etc to get an edge over an enemy.  In a game however, I think fairness is important.  We have two ways to get to that point, tier limits, or no limits with ships that are all competitive (at least to some degree) with each other regardless of tier.  If we go with that second concept, the next logical question would be, if I can fight a tier X with a tier II and expect a reasonable chance (not necessarily a good chance) of winning, why would I want to grind to a tier X?

I understand your point. However, many of the ships were upgraded in relatively modest ways. For example, the Revenges of WWII were generally still the same slow ships they were at launch. There's a fair chance that a Revenge on convoy duty might have had to fight off a Tirpitz by herself, so the range -- if there is a range -- on any limits (which I still oppose) needs to be very, very wide.

I also think that, with very little effort, the Wargaming guys could do the following: make a theoretical 'Moltke' or 'Princess Royal' upgraded in games dominated by higher tier boats, even if said ships were never upgraded IRL. And this doesn't have to involve a major model redesign (or any redesign, etc) -- just up the stats of that ship slightly to account for the fitting of radar, or more accurate firecontrol, better shells, etc. We wouldn't be able to really see those changes from the outside anyway (well, not the fire control and shells, at least), and this would serve to close the gap, if only slightly.

The problem with throwing in restrictions is I think you're going to quickly see people stop using those ships anyway. Unlike with WoT, a lot of people are going into WoWS with a hazy idea of what ship they want to sail the most. And, I would say, a vastly disproportionate number of them favor things like Yamato; H-44; Montana, and so on and so forth. Thus, there is going to be a stronger (even than in WoT) drive that thrusts people quickly out of the lower tiers.

[Super_Dreadnought]

Princess Royal makes many good points on the viability of WW1 era vessels in real life, but I feel that some kind of tiering system needs to be in as this is not real life. I would be in favour of a relatively expansive 3 tier spread, but I feel it must be in.

 

There is the problem that if there were no tiers at all what you will find is that newbies sailing Dreadnought, will run into a unicum sailing USS Midway and get their [edited]handed to them so quickly that they didn't realise they were hit by tier X torpedo bombers - and WW1 era ships didn't have good torpedo protection. Also people usuallly try to win when they are in a competition, and will use every advantage they can get their hands on. If there are no tiers everybody will just rush to the highest tier ships and just play those in order to give themselves the best advantage they can.

 

I imagine that newcomers would become frustrated quickly of being turned into fish food by tier X players every match and uninstall the game.

[MM2ss]

I agree a wide range would be required if we go with a tier limited system.  I said + or - 4 earlier.  So, that means a tier 6 fight would possibly include ships as low as tier 2 and as high as tier 10.  Which may actually be a little too broad depending on what ships are in what tier.  However, in such a fight, the majority of the ships would be tier 6.  (Mmm... let me adjust for a second example).

 

A +/- 3 rule would mean a tier 6 fight would range as low as tier 3 and as high as tier 9  in theory.  The advantage would be that a tier 10 would never fight anything lower than a tier 7 vessel, unless it was the high ship in a tier 7 battle, then the lowest possible enemy would be tier 4.

 

To me, that second option looks a little more natural.  Assuming Dreadnought is a tier 2, the would fight tier 1's on the low end, in a level 2 fight she would match up against tier 5's at most, and if she is the low boat in a tier 5 fight, she could face up to a tier 8 (South Dakota for the US line?  Nelson or King George V (1939) for the UK line?).  I'd say Dreadnought would need to get somewhat lucky to hold her own against those vessels, but she could potentially kill them,

 

Now, as for modifications and upgrades, I do hope that some improvements are available, and in some cases I could see the same ship turning up in more than one place on a tech tree.  I do not see modules as being sufficient to really move a ship a substantial amount in terms of capability.  For example, using Dreadnought, she was modified to have greater elevation and thus range (13.5 degrees to 16 degrees).  But she still was nowhere near the range potential of later vessels that were capable of 30+ degrees of elevation.

[MM2ss]

Just saw the edit in your earlier post.

 

"*Edit* Also, I want to add that it's somewhat silly to think that our theoretical Dreadnought will always be shooting at our theoretical Montana. Dreadnought and Montana would both be in the company of other ships in WoWS, and if those ships were relatively coordinated, Montana would likely being shot at by something bigger than Dreadnought, while Dreadnought would likely be targeting something smaller than Montana. The 'one on one, I'll meet you in five minutes in the back alley so we can settle the score' fight is nonsense, at least in this game."

 

I agree, the theoretical Montana on Dreadnought would not be the norm.  Now, if each side had a high and low tier BB (Montana and Delaware vs Yamato and Dreadnought for example) we'd have a very evenly matched fight.  If we ended up with Iowa and Tennessee vs Montana and Dreadnought, it'd be a bit uneven overall I think (but not insurmountable).  If we got a really bad split somehow, (recalling the proposed 'slot' system which I believe is now being discarded or modified), like say Iowa and Tennessee vs Dreadnought and Florida (you could win in theory, but not very likely), it'd be very unfair to say the least.

 

The other factor is Murphy and his law...  If your heavier (higher tier) BB gets taken out early on, then the theoretical Dreadnought or Delaware has to soldier on alone.

[Azumazi]

I rather like Royal's weight system over the tiers with limits on each class for a few reasons, and yes I'm going to go to NF2 for this one.

 

In great battle games, the older BB's were not useless vs higher BB's. They were out ranged, and the enemy BB's were faster, but there was something else they could do. Go into the enemy ship's blind spot. This game will be a lot like NF on the sneaking ability by removing their scout planes or staying out of spotting range of them to sneak up on an enemy ship. This alone means a lower tier BB will be effective in the game at all tiers in some way or another.

 

If I remember right, they said each team would have 18 players correct? Or so far that it was last released on the forums. So that gives you 18 ships to divide up. I would cap it at 2 carriers, 5 battleships, 5 CA/CLs, and 6 DD's. Using a weight tier system means, you would never have say on the enemy team 3 Yamatos and 2 Iowa's vs 3 QE's and 2 Revenges, which is what I think people here are afraid of in full fear. Now with a weight system it would more or less go like if one BB-X is in queue, it will level it out with another BB-X, or the like.

 

Enemy team has BB-10, BB-7, BB-6, BB-6, and a BB-3. The MM can't find the exacts, so it goes off a weight system and gives the enemy team BB-10, BB-8, BB-6, BB-5, BB-3. The BB-3's would not be trying to engage the BB10s, or the 7/8s, but would be completely capable of engaging the 6's and 5's along with their counterpart. Also as I said, with proper AA, those BB-3's could sneak up on an enemy BB 8 or 7 or even the 10 while hes fighting say his own counter part and get double teamed. This game gives us a much wider range of combat that we can exploit, not to mention some maps will have islands and the like for us to use to sneak around. That BB-3 say its the Tennessee before its refit and it runs into a Bismarck, at 5km the both of them are going to be tearing each other up, will the Tennessee lose? Possibly, but it also based on player skill and crew, could knock out their superstructure with the first salvo causing the Bismarck's accuracy to be so bad it has a hard time giving accurate returned fire.

 

The possiblities are limitless.

[Windhover118]

What about other ship types? Is is really fair to put a Clemson class destroyer in the same battle as an Allen M. Sumner Class? Sure the Clemson could probably damage the Sumner but the Clemson would probably lose a dual with the Sumner. Of course we do need to take into account player skill but if you were to have two equivalent players I would wager on the Sumner. I believe that a ship no matter the tier can be useful against a variety of opponents but at the same time, not having a tier system could lead to some very unbalanced battles. As for the poll, I dont think age alone should be a consideration, the capabilities of the ship however should.

[Battleship_Unknown2]

Windhover118, on 18 February 2013 - 02:24 AM, said:

What about other ship types? Is is really fair to put a Clemson class destroyer in the same battle as an Allen M. Sumner Class?

They were part of the destroyers for bases agreement, and fought in the Second World War. To exclude them hardly seems fair, either.

Look, I'm not arguing that an inequality in strength doesn't exist -- it absolutely does. What I am arguing is that 'low chance' doesn't equal 'no chance,' and that factor -- as well as permitting us the joy of answering some of the many 'what ifs' of history -- trumps the requirement to balance the game like a Swiss watch. Others are, of course, entitled to argue to the contrary (and already have). However, I see nothing wrong with seeing a four-stacker take on more modern enemy DDs.

[Windhover118]

Wait, are we arguing exluding them from the game or exluding them from tier X battles?

 

edit: They may have historically served in WWII but this is still going to be a game and I somehow doubt that people would appreciate their low tier getting put in a high tier battle. A Panzer III has a chance of destroying an Easy 8 but does that mean Panzer IIIs should be in tier 6 battles?

[MM2ss]

If this were a simulation, I'd say no tiers, let the chips fall where they may.  However, when we look at an arcade type game, I feel that balance is more important that historical possibilities.

 

Now, I would like to see a game mode that would let us poke around and look into some of the possible match-ups.

[Crag_r]

Now as much as i hate to say it, but balancing in game comes before historical accuracy. Players will not find the game fun if they are having to grind through early Dreadnoughts while going up against late design battleships. Getting 1 shotted from well out of your range is not enjoyable and is not beneficial to keeping players or at least getting them to pay money.

[NargilFenris]

I think it will depend where and how they tier ships before we can really tell.

[Azumazi]

What I'm saying is, you can balance it without using the tiers to do it, but a weight system. I just don't see the tier system working for a ship game. There is a lot more to take into consideration than just armor, fire power, armor, speed like with the tanks.

 

Also as for that DD argument, both would have an = chance of taking each other out. Hell most DD's did have an equal chance since all of them pretty much only had 14-18mm of DS plate for the hull which is of commercial grade. Also, DD's have the great equalizer, Torpedos. I don't care what tier your ship is in a DD. A torp hit = a kill, it might not sink right away, but you're most likely giving the abandon ship order after she lists over on her side after having a chunk the size of the quarterdeck ripped out of her with 600lbs of TNT. Also to be fair, the Clem has more speed, and more torpedos with less guns while the Sumner has more guns.

 

Now am I saying they are going to be truly =, no, but that instance alone gives you a reason why you can't use a normal tier system for these ships, I also wager a lot of Alpha is going to prove that and will require massive tweaking to the MM system to get it to pan out right.

 

Now with the weight system, you could technically cap it with a mild tier, meaning a tier 1-2-3 would never face a tier 9-10, but tier 4 CL, or DD could and would still be a threat in a game with tier 10's around. I don't know how many times on a game like Battlestations Midway or NF2 I sunk a high BB with a fast DD with torps, it's all about knowing the ship, how to move and how to use her.

[Windhover118]

I dont really understand why you guys want this. Just doesnt sound like a whole lot of fun to me.

[Battleship_Unknown2]

Windhover118, on 18 February 2013 - 04:20 AM, said:

I dont really understand why you guys want this. Just doesnt sound like a whole lot of fun to me.

Because it's not as unequal as you're making it out to be. The Warspite was a WWI vessel. She had what I would call a modest rebuild between 1934-37 -- engines were replaced (though the speed didn't climb at all), some deck armor was added, the secondary battery was rebuilt, and she was given an armored citadel to replace the old tiered bridge area and tripod mast.

After 2 million pounds, you still had a warship with:

• The same belt armor.
  
• The same main armament.
  
• The same speed.

Now, nobody -- I hope -- is going to argue that the most battle-scarred and battle-starred British dreadnought of all time doesn't deserve to tangle with the big boys. Warspite needs to be allowed to take shots at Bismarck; at Iowa; at Yamato. She stands a fair shot against Bismarck, slightly less against Iowa, and probably even less against Yamato, but who is going to deprive the vessel of that ultimate battle? She was active throughout WWI and WWII; fought at Jutland; shelled shore positions at Normandy; sank cruisers (and chased of Vittorio Veneto) in the Med. But, when all is said and done, she's WWI technology where it counts: guns, armor, and speed; old guns, old armor configuration, modest-to-poor speed.

But here's the thing: what exactly distinguishes Warspite from any one of dozens of other WWI battleships?

A few knots? -- she's still slower than every antagonist I listed.

That she experienced a modest 1930s rebuild? -- so did most dreadnoughts of the era (and it didn't gain her, or them, much).

Or is Warspite's advantage merely psychological? Is it 'all in our heads?' Have we trained ourselves (as I believe) to think 'well that's a ship that fought in WWII, so of course she belongs in the discussion'...?

But, hell, let's make this easier. Let's focus on a dreadnought that lacked a speed advantage, but still would have been expected to fight off Bismarck.

HMS Revenge spent almost all of WWII in North Atlantic convoy duty. It was a long, arduous, and mostly-dull war for her and her crew, but they were there for a reason: to fight off heavy surface raiders. Now, let's say that the British lose Bismarck and fail to engage in the Denmark Straits. And, let's say, she stumbles upon a convoy guarded by Revenge. None of this, thus far, is anything but plausible. And so here you have a WWI battleship with her same, generic armor scheme, same 21 knots, same 15" guns (all as-built) being asked to fight off Bismarck. There's nothing absurd about that.

Here are Revenge's stats:

Tonnage: 31,000 full load
Speed: 21 knots
Armanent: 8  x BL 15-inch Mk I guns
Secondary: 14 x 6" casemate guns
Tertiary: 2 x 3" AA, 4 x 47mm
Belt armor: 13 inches amidships

So, there you have an 'acceptable' combatant for Bismarck.

Now, here's an 'unacceptable' combatant; HMS Iron Duke, Royal Navy flagship at Jutland:

Tonnage: 29,500 full load
Speed: 21 knots
Armanent: 10 × BL 13.5-inch Mk V guns
Secondary: 12 x 6" casemate guns
Tertiary: 2 x QF 3" inch AA guns, 4 x 3-pounder guns, 5 x 0.303 in machine guns
Belt armor: 12 inches amidships

The total weight of an HMS Revenge broadside? 15,360lbs. The total weight of an HMS Iron Duke broadside? 14,000lbs. Which, I might add, is the identical weight of broadside thrown by the Orion class, and the WWI King George V class. The other stats are within a hair of each other, too.

These are not ships that dramatically outclassed each other. They were slight, incremental steps. It wasn't, say, the difference between Dreadnought and Lord Nelson; it wasn't the difference between Dreadnought and Yamato (which, really, isn't as wide as the previous comparison). We pluck at the extremes when it's the middle ground that counts for almost all other ships. And yet we're read to deny one vessel legitimacy and say the other is just fine? Over one inch of armor plate and a thousand pounds of broadside weight?

Again, I think this is an issue of perception trumping fact.

Let's shift gears once more and look at another rebuild, this time major: the Italian battleship Conte di Cavour. She had 10 x 13.1" guns after her reconstruction (having lost 3 when her amidships turret was removed). That's a smaller weight of broadside than Iron Duke.She also had, at its thickest, only an 11" belt. Nobody is going to deny that ship a chance to duke it out with Yamato, either (or nobody should). After the upgrade, she was as modern a battleship as any other WWII combatant. Not that it matters, but she looked nice and new, too:



Again, this is not World of Tanks.

Yeah, you can point to extremes like Yamato vs. Dreadnought, but how often is that going to come up? And look how quickly the numbers start to get fuzzy. They get so blurred, so fast that the idea of implementing any limits becomes silly. Revenge can take on Bismarck but Iron Duke can't? Or if Iron Duke can, Orion can't? And what about Conte di Cavour, who is arguably a weaker dreadnought than the lot? So much of naval battles had to do with luck, commander competency and crew experience. I bet a British-crewed Conte di Cavour could sink an Italian-crewed Warspite -- handily. These factors matter so much more than when you're talking about tanks; tanks, where a single hit is almost always the determining factor in a fight.

Yamato and Musashi were two ships amongst dozens, and yet that's the lofty standard that we hold everything up against, as if every other enemy player will be fielding 18" guns and armor we can't penetrate. Well what happens when Revenge goes up against Yamato? What happens when Arizona does? What makes one wide inequality gap 'more fair' than an infinitesimally minor step wider?

Also, who is to say that Iron Duke wouldn't do well against Arizona? Or Moltke against Hood? Or Delaware against the Andrea Doria? That's the middle ground we have to by-in-large concern ourselves with, and that's the place where 99% of this game's battles are going to lie. Unless, of course, we start to divvy them up ridiculously.

Where do you draw that line? And, more importantly, why do you draw that line?

[MM2ss]

Where to draw the line depends on which ship classes are ultimately included.  I think most folks would agree that routinely dropping the Delaware or Dreadnought classes in a battle that includes the likes of Iowa, Bismarck, Yamato, etc would not be a good thing.

 

Now, why draw a line?  Playability.  Could Dreadnought or Orion potentially take out a New York class vessel?  Certainly.  They are not so different in terms of capability.  Could Dreadnought or Orion stand up to Bismarck, Iowa, or Vanguard?  I do not believe they stand much, if any chance in those fights.

 

In a simulation, I believe in no holds barred, game on.  In an arcade style game, balance trumps historical possibility, for reasons of fairness and playability.

 

Think of this, if we have a no tier limit system, how often would you like to try and take on a South Dakota, North Caroline, or Iowa in a Dreadnought or 1911 KGV?  Every now and then, or in special modes, sure, I say bring it on.  Potentially every fight?  I say no thanks, if I wanted to do that, I would just play NF full time.

[Windhover118]

The Revenge would probably be a tier 5 or 6 which means there is a good chance she would face Bismarcks anyway. This isnt about WWI technology vs WWII technology, this is about progression in the game. When looking at tiers you also have to take into account player development. Do you think a player who reached tier V after one day of playing will be a fair match against a tier X player who has been playing for months or maybe even years? It would be the same problem as low tiers buying a tier 8 premium and not knowing how to play the game. Most of the ships in this game are either going to be WWI or pre WWII ships to the age of the ship is a nonfactor as far as tiering goes.

[Battleship_Unknown2]

MM2ss, on 18 February 2013 - 05:33 AM, said:

Now, why draw a line? Playability. Could Dreadnought or Orion potentially take out a New York class vessel?  Certainly.  They are not so different in terms of capability.  Could Dreadnought or Orion stand up to Bismarck, Iowa, or Vanguard? I do not believe they stand much, if any chance in those fights.

Bismarck:

Tonnage: 50,100 tons full load
Speed: 30.1 knots
Armanent: 8 x 15" guns
Secondary: 12 x 5.9" guns, 16 x 4.1" guns
Tertiary: 16 x 1.5" guns
Belt armor: 13 inches amidships

Revenge:

Tonnage: 31,000 tons full load
Speed: 21 knots
Armanent: 8  x BL 15-inch Mk I guns
Secondary: 14 x 6" casemate guns
Tertiary: 2 x 3" AA, 4 x 47mm
Belt armor: 13 inches amidships

Orion:

Tonnage: 26,000 tons full load
Speed: 21 knots
Armanent: 10 × BL 13.5-inch Mk V guns
Secondary: 16 x 4" casemate guns
Belt armor: 12 inches amidships

I'm not seeing the dramatic difference between Revenge and Orion. Yes, I don't deny Revenge was a better ship... but so much better than Orion that one has a legitimate shot and the other does not? I deny that entirely.

How green is Revenge's crew? How green is Bismarck's? Who has the weather gauge at the start of the battle? Who is the admiral or captain in command of each of the ships? I take those factors as more a determination that any of the ships involved's stats. The differences between Revenge and Orion aren't significant enough to eliminate either.

[Windhover118]

PrincessRoyal, on 18 February 2013 - 05:56 AM, said:

How green is Revenge's crew? How green is Bismarck's? Who has the weather gauge at the start of the battle? Who is the admiral or captain in command of each of the ships? I take those factors as more a determination that any of the ships involved's stats. The differences between Revenge and Orion aren't significant enough to eliminate either.

Are those factors going to be relevant in this game? .

[Battleship_Unknown2]

Windhover118, on 18 February 2013 - 06:02 AM, said:

Are those factors going to be relevant in this game? .

If they aren't, then can you please explain to me how Revenge so dramatically outclasses Orion that one has a demonstrably better shot against Bismarck than the other? Again, even if crew and commander competency don't matter a whit, I'm not seeing a big difference between the ships themselves. Maybe if one was 27 knots and the other was 21, or one had 15" belt armor and the other just had 11", but that's not true. Orion could likely seriously hurt Bismarck... potentially not sink her outright, but who knows? One lucky shell hit is all it takes.

Go compare USS New York to USS Arizona. They're both WWI-era U.S. designs, but there's an obvious (but still small) increase in stats between them. New York was on convoy duty in the Atlantic for much of WWII, too, so there's always a chance she could have run into Bismarck or Tirpitz. The difference between New York and Arizona is roughly equivalent to the different between Revenge and Orion.

Orion:

Tonnage: 26,000 tons full load
Speed: 21 knots
Armanent: 10 × BL 13.5-inch Mk V guns
Secondary: 16 x 4" casemate guns
Belt armor: 12 inches amidships

New York:

Tonnage: 28,000 tons full load
Speed: 21 knots
Armanent: 10 × 14" guns
Secondary: 21 x 5" casemate guns
Belt armor: 12 inches amidships

Should New York be barred from engaging Bismarck? Because I'm telling you right now that you're going to have some pretty POed fans of New York and Texas if you tell them they can't sink an iconic foe like Bismarck.