Question: Nation vs. Nation matches?

[capncrunch21]

Just curious, is there a 'Nation vs. Nation' matching system in the game? (Either Co-op or Standard match or both?)

 

Seems like it'd be pretty fun to run British vs. Germany, or Japan vs. US, or Russia vs. Japan, or even 'wargames' like US vs. British, etc.

[Hereticus2142]

Its a concept being discussed and potentially added for WoT as "Historical battle mode" but nothing such for WoWS to my knowledge.   Though if it does make it into WoT then its probable to eventually be seen in WoWS

[Demon93IT]

Not currently. Personally i wouldn't mind if WG gives it a shot but after what happened in WoT i'm not sure if they would even try.

[Clunas]

Lol it was hilariously broken in WoT. I could see it working a bit better here though

[Hereticus2142]

It was added into WoT in the past?   Based on the Gamescom stuff I assumed it was still just a concept?

[MrMooFlarby01]

I could see it working quite well in WoWS.

[Clunas]

They did have it in for a little while. The games tended to be a landslide as certain nations are significantly stronger than others at certain tiers. 

[pinarous]

Its a concept being discussed and potentially added for WoT as "Historical battle mode" but nothing such for WoWS to my knowledge.   Though if it does make it into WoT then its probable to eventually be seen in WoWS

 

That's confrontation mode not historical battles.And again balancing issues gonna ruin that Nation vs Nation mode.Personally I don't need it,and I already know which nation might has better chance to win and if the full russian tech tree released there won't be a second answer.

[Rebeldad]

 

That's confrontation mode not historical battles.And again balancing issues gonna ruin that Nation vs Nation mode.Personally I don't need it,and I already know which nation might has better chance to win and if the full russian tech tree released there won't be a second answer.

 

+1 yup no question about it.

[Hillslam]

I would love this, but like Clunas said they can't. It would strongly illuminate their line bias and then WG would have to wholesale fix too much. They'd lose money.

 

 

[userz123]

This game? Historical? This isn't Gaijin's war thunder. Beside a "Historical" Nation vs Nation mode would sucks because that mean Germany and Russia would never have a CV, would be pwned so hard by US JP AND GB,  it would even be more suck for Russia cuz they don't have any Battleships.

[chaplainDMK]

I would love this, but like Clunas said they can't. It would strongly illuminate their line bias and then WG would have to wholesale fix too much. They'd lose money.

 

 

 

 

 

It's not about balance as much as it's about each nation being specialised at something. The point is that ships of all nations and classes complement each other in random battles. Right now the USN is on average the more brawling nation, with ships better suited to one on one "fair" fights, while the IJN has advantages in concealment, range and speed, so they have to fight differently. But when you dont mish-mash ships, you loose balance because the the USN need IJN DD's to take out capitol ships, the IJN needs USN carriers and cruisers to have air control, and the USN needs IJN capitol ships because they can move around faster and respond to situations better.

 

You have "normal" and you have support navies, and support navies wont fare well against "normal" navies.

[capncrunch21]

I'm not talking about 'historical' matches (that would be totally skewed, like the lack of German CVs), I'm simply suggesting Nation vs. Nation matches much along the same line that Co-op battles are now.

 

 

 

Matches that would be equally balanced ship-for-ship per side.

 

For example, in a Nation vs. Nation match of IJN vs. USN.... for every tier 3 BB the IJN gets, the USN gets a tier 3 BB. For every tier 2 DD the USN gets, the IJN gets a tier 2 DD. So, just like in Co-op matches, the sides are practically identical, except for the flavor of the nation. This should balance out a match, given the strengths and weaknesses of each side.

[Guest]

Could definitely work better, could be seen as a interesting "alternate history" mode that could add a potential new mode as well, which would work in a odd fashion as putting something like the Royal Navy Vs the USN.

I'm not talking about 'historical' matches (that would be totally skewed, like the lack of German CVs), I'm simply suggesting Nation vs. Nation matches much along the same line that Co-op battles are now.

 

 

 

Matches that would be equally balanced ship-for-ship per side.

 

For example, in a Nation vs. Nation match of IJN vs. USN.... for every tier 3 BB the IJN gets, the USN gets a tier 3 BB. For every tier 2 DD the USN gets, the IJN gets a tier 2 DD. So, just like in Co-op matches, the sides are practically identical, except for the flavor of the nation. This should balance out a match, given the strengths and weaknesses of each side.

 

Could work honestly...though I can see people only playing the higher tiers and leaving the lower ones empty. 

[Carrier_Furious]

I'm not talking about 'historical' matches (that would be totally skewed, like the lack of German CVs), I'm simply suggesting Nation vs. Nation matches much along the same line that Co-op battles are now.

 

 

 

Germans will have CV's though. They'll all just be paper designs though and might have battleship guns on them. 

It could work, or it could be like a axis vs allies thing, or these 2 nations vs these 2 nations. Etc.

[1SL_Hans]

Yes, please add this. 

[capncrunch21]

Germans will have CV's though. They'll all just be paper designs though and might have battleship guns on them.

It could work, or it could be like a axis vs allies thing, or these 2 nations vs these 2 nations. Etc.

 

True.

 

 

An Axis vs. Allies match would be cool too.

[rakshasaclaw]

 

True.

 

 

An Axis vs. Allies match would be cool too.

 

Only because they insist on improperly balancing USN ships vs IJN ships. It wouldn't be nearly as enjoyable for the axis fanboys once they add the Russians unless the USSR magically becomes neutral. I say this based on the obvious historical results of WW2. The USN obliterated the IJN, hence why only 1 IJN BB survived the war and the US only lost 2 (including all the ones "sunk" at Pearl Harbor). And let's be honest the war in the Atlantic wasn't a significant naval war. The Nazi's had a mostly futile attempt to blockade the UK, but few naval battles actually occured. Naval battles during WW1, yes large scale mostly Atlantic conflicts... but not during WW2.

[IronWolfV]

I could see it as a variant of Co-op, but not so much in standard battles.

[EricT2015]

I wouldn't mind seeing it, it could work.

[Skpstr]

This game? Historical? This isn't Gaijin's war thunder. 

 

In the context of the topic, (being nation vs. nation matchups) Gaijin is no more historical (in arcade mode, which is what the vast majority play) than WG.

[Quora]

 

Only because they insist on improperly balancing USN ships vs IJN ships. It wouldn't be nearly as enjoyable for the axis fanboys once they add the Russians unless the USSR magically becomes neutral. I say this based on the obvious historical results of WW2. The USN obliterated the IJN, hence why only 1 IJN BB survived the war and the US only lost 2 (including all the ones "sunk" at Pearl Harbor). And let's be honest the war in the Atlantic wasn't a significant naval war. The Nazi's had a mostly futile attempt to blockade the UK, but few naval battles actually occured. Naval battles during WW1, yes large scale mostly Atlantic conflicts... but not during WW2.

 

You also couldn't do justice to the nations without adding submarines to the navies, so until they get around to doing that, and it's going to be a few years at the slow rate they are going with this game, there's no point in trying to make Axis vs Allies or nation vs nation battles.   The German navy was a handful of commerce raiding battlecruisers that all got sunk one at a time as they were escorted by out of date destroyers, and then they had their U-boats which accounted for over 90% of their actual naval power exerted during the war itself.   The US brought Japan to it's knees not through battleships or carrier air power, but with it's submarine force which was the ONE thing that the Japanese failed to hit at Pearl Harbor.   Had they hit the repair docks and sub pens on Dec 7, then the war could have actually gone very differently than the one we know of.

[teamoldmill]

Lol it was hilariously broken in WoT. I could see it working a bit better here though

 

It was comically fun sometimes though..... certainly brought weaknesses into the spotlight.

[Skpstr]

 

You also couldn't do justice to the nations without adding submarines to the navies, so until they get around to doing that, and it's going to be a few years at the slow rate they are going with this game, there's no point in trying to make Axis vs Allies or nation vs nation battles.   The German navy was a handful of commerce raiding battlecruisers that all got sunk one at a time as they were escorted by out of date destroyers, and then they had their U-boats which accounted for over 90% of their actual naval power exerted during the war itself.   The US brought Japan to it's knees not through battleships or carrier air power, but with it's submarine force which was the ONE thing that the Japanese failed to hit at Pearl Harbor.   Had they hit the repair docks and sub pens on Dec 7, then the war could have actually gone very differently than the one we know of.

 

Subs aren't necessary. You aren't wrong about their effect on the war at the strategic level, but WoWS isn't a strategic game. For the most part, subs sinking warships (besides convoy escorts and raids on harbor facilities) was the result of opportunity, not planning.