Adding ships that were never built ruins historical authenticity.

[RIFLEMAN_74]

To the game developers:  I love this game.  That said; i resent that certain nations are adding ships to their fleet that were never built, or supposedly "on the drawing board".  These fictitious ships are then put up against real ships that were built to allow nations to be more competitive i guess, but this RUINS the realism of the game.  Where does it stop?   What is the point of grinding through to a Des Moines when suddenly there is a fictitious Russian ship that can challenge it?  I believe the core attraction of your game is that is based on historical authenticity.    .....but love the game play and all your efforts of course.

[Zhoyzu]

I LOL'D

guess you wont be staying long

[Special_Kay]

In before someone points out the USN ships in-game which never sailed.

[Goose21891]

In before someone points out the USN ships in-game which never sailed.

Montana, Nicholas, Phoenix

[FallenZulu]

Do not play this game if you want realism. This is a arcade based game that utilizes historical/realistic elements, but will be changed in the name of balance. The combat itself is not even realistic compared to most ship v. ship engagements in real life. Just enjoy the game as it is because paper designs are a attracting element to WG's products.

[Batwingsix]

So lets remove 1/2 of the ships in game... this isn't a simulator

[Macabe]

Wargaming.net contrary to popular belief is not Russian. Historical accuracy and realism is irrelevant regardless. The only historical accuracy needed is that researchable ships aesthetically resemble the real life class equivalent. I don't think the DM is the best choice to make an example given it's statistically the worst tier 10 cruiser. And lastly, historical authenticity does not matter in an arcade game besides the aesthetics.

[Legendary_Typo]

Remember the core attraction of your game is that is based on historical authenticity.

 

It isn't and never was.

[Lert]

This game is not, never was and never will be, historical.

[MelonFlavoredShells]

Remember the core attraction of your game is that is based on historical authenticity. I'm sorry the Russian navy never matured to match the US or Japan, but please don't impose your personal nationalism into the game or we will be turned off at the historical misrepresentation.

 

Were you actually writing this with a straight face? The core attraction of the game is not based on historical authenticity - it is well established that Wargaming will make unhistorical changes for the sake of game balance (or in the case of Iowa's 40mm Bofors mounts, for the hell of it). Also, the Soviet Navy did in fact challenge the US Navy after WWII, that statement is blatantly false.

 

Edit: If you're so upset about the historical accuracy being off, then why aren't you up in arms about Zao, Myogi, Phoenix, Nicholas, Hindenburg, and the many other blueprint ships? Why is it just the Soviet cruisers?

[poeticmotion]

Your mom already ruined historical authenticity. Back to the bathtub for historically accurate bottlesheep!

[MajorRenegade]

Want realism? Join the Navy

[Lonewolfpj]

but it makes the game better

[FallenZulu]

Want realism? Join the Navy

 

[RIFLEMAN_74]

Wow,.....i guess i attracted some real sensitive children here.  Developers?,...wow.   My simple point was a good percentage of the attraction of the game was its attention historical detail.  It is unfair to that aspect to introduce ships that were never built.  Its a basic point and MY opinion.  So i get personally attacked?   

 

My criticism applies to USN ships like the Montana, etc. as well,...and agreed.   If the point is balance; then there is balance in for instance a Des Moines on both sides of the battle as the match maker puts ships of the same navy on opposing sides, so that's a mute point.   I object to fictitiously raising a nation's naval capabilities that never were.  Seems like some developers' nationalistic aspirations are in play in order for this to be taking place.  Sad.

 

For those children that think i am not happy with the game and wouldn't be staying long must have been so offended by the criticism that they missed that i said i love this game.  Really,....it's past your bed time.

 

 

[RIFLEMAN_74]

Harathan, i wasn't initiating personal attacks, just stating my opinion.  To respond ad hominem as you and others did to my opinion is quite childish.  If you disagree with my opinion, feel free to state so, but the insults show you to be the one that needs to grow up. It appears that the group that is the inner circle of this game are adverse to criticism and are ready to retaliate to those that have a different opinions then theirs.  How sad.  Children do that. On your point that i am unfamiliar with the forum; hey, sorry, my bad, so bring me up on charges i guess?(...really).    I posted in the forum because i noted others have expressed issues with ships that actually WERE, that are not being represented, like many British ships, and i am following that point.  My claims are my speculations as to why the developers chose to introduce ships to match the power of other nations' ships that never were.  If you can comprehend what is being written, instead of immediately taking offense, you'd realize they were speculations as to motivations and not "claims" as you are asserting.  SO SENSITIVE.  My conclusion is that there are obviously people like you that are unwilling to hear criticism and choose to retaliate back with ad hominem personal attacks as you did instead of simply expressing mature disagreement.   So, i'm sorry if i offended you by calling your and others' tantrum like retaliatory attacks to me personally as "childish" for expressing my simple opinion that i feel introducing ships from any nation that never were as ruining the authenticity of the game.  It is my opinion.  Still is.

As for you personally, well.....i have nothing but sympathy for you.   You may have the last word.  
 

[Special_Kay]

You don't get it both ways, Glen. You're equally guilty of ad hominem, so lose the high horse. It's painfully clear to us that you're coming from a mindset of entitlement and know-it-all-ism, which is why you've received the welcome you have. I won't analyze your post to justify that perspective to you because most folks will either see it themselves or refuse to see it regardless of how it is pointed out.

 

Yes, you've been the target of immature derision. That's wrong and there's no two ways about it. However, you've got some introspection to do if you want to elicit a different category of reactions.

[FallenZulu]

Yes, you've been the target of immature derision. That's wrong and there's no two ways about it. However, you've got some introspection to do if you want to elicit a different category of reactions.

I would hardly call what has been said on this thread immature derision. If anything he got it pretty easy and most of us just pointed out errors with is statement, there have been far worse insults that has been thrown around on this forum.

[RIFLEMAN_74]

Dear Special_Kay, 

I simply stated an opinion that ships that never were, ruin authenticity.  It is my opinion and i have read this from others as well.  The ad hominem attacks about my mother and etc. were some of the responses.  When i responded that these attacks are childish, i don't believe that makes me guilty of ad hominem retaliation, and having it "both ways".  What did i write that suggests "entitlement"?  Where do i claim to be a 'know it all'?  I give you credit for pointing out USN ships like the Montana, etc. were also never a reality, so i expressed that point in my second post.  That is what should happen in this forum, no?   

 

I stand with the opinion that it appears that many of inner circle of this game are TOO sensitive for constructive criticism, sadly.

[FallenZulu]

Dear Special_Kay, 

I simply stated an opinion that ships that never were, ruin authenticity.  It is my opinion and i have read this from others as well.  The ad hominem attacks about my mother and etc. were some of the responses.  When i responded that these attacks are childish, i don't believe that makes me guilty of ad hominem retaliation, and having it "both ways".  What did i write that suggests "entitlement"?  Where do i claim to be a 'know it all'?  I give you credit for pointing out USN ships like the Montana, etc. were also never a reality, so i expressed that point in my second post.  That is what should happen in this forum, no?   

 

I stand with the opinion that it appears that many of inner circle of this game is TOO sensitive for constructive criticism, sadly.

 

Not sure if you know yet but if you want to respond to a post a member made, just hit that quote button down of the bottom right. It comes in handy.

[RIFLEMAN_74]

 

Not sure if you now yet but if you want to respond to a post a member made, just hit that quote button down of the bottom right. It comes in handy.

 

Thank you.

[kerensky914]

I stand with the opinion that it appears that many of inner circle of this game are TOO sensitive for constructive criticism, sadly.

 

What you've not yet realized is that they are sensitive to this particular criticism (and some others) because these topics are brought up daily.  Or did you really think you were the first person to express this exact same opinion?

 

As for childish derision, well, this *is* the Internet after all.  You'd best get used to it.

 

[poeticmotion]

 The ad hominem attacks about my mother and etc. were some of the responses. 

 

If you took that comment as an actual attack on your mother, you've got deeper problems than this forum can help you with. 

[xLeadSledx]

THIS IS A GAME AFTERALL !!!! .......MAKE IT FUN FIRST.......!!!! ......GET YOUR HISTORY FROM HISTORIANS NOT GAMES.........

 

WG if this is Educational would it not be a TAX "write off". and also a .org to go along with it . WG.org does sound kewl.

[Crucis]

 The ad hominem attacks about my mother and etc. were some of the responses. 

 

If you took that comment as an actual attack on your mother, you've got deeper problems than this forum can help you with. 

 

 

poetic, as far as I'm concerned, your previous comment WAS an attack on mothers.  I find all these "your mom" jokes to be grossly offensive.  Maybe it's a generational thing and maybe I'm showing my age, but in my day, if you'd said that sort of thing to me, I might have popped you one for insulting my mother.  At the very least, you'd have had me in your face demanding an immediate apology.  IMO, making jokes that insult peoples' mothers is grossly offensive and have no place in a polite and civil society.  And trying to use the excuse that this is the internet is no excuse at all.