Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
TL_Warlord_Roff

SO a how about a hard core naval sim version of WOWS...

  • You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.

39 posts in this topic

You got this awesome artwork, all those models done to the umpteenth degree...

 

and honestly if there was a "Hardcore" version of WOWS that was entirely by the numbers historically as dead on as ya'll can make it, well, ya know, it might, ya know, shut a buncha people up!.. no commander skills, modules and add ons.  No options no player picking mods.  Players earn ship up grades.. and some ships don't have up grades.  If it didn't exist historically, it wont be there.   And everyone starts in DD's.. Getting ones self into a BB will be a bit of a long process..

 

There's a handful of hard core navel sims out there..including some die hard's running heavily modded version of Great Naval Battles 5,  Jutland and Distant Guns, Ironclads, Victorian Admirals, and a few other titles...I'm only familiar with the ones available in the US market.

As far as I know the best worlds ww-II ship combat sim might not even be available in the US!

 

But on the side, just a spare time project a World of Warships Hard Core mode.  Let folks play it for free, keep it upgraded as needed, and when players go on and on about play balance in the main game, reward them with a weeks worth of premium time in the hard core game..

 

*cackles maniacally!*.

 

..


2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can't wait to read the whine threads when dispersion is set to "historically accurate" :trollface::popcorn:

 

I was just thinking that. People would have so much fun with a ~5% hit rate.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I was just thinking that. People would have so much fun with a ~5% hit rate.

 

You sure?   When I visited the Mighty Moe they said its guns could hit a Dime 2 miles away.  They were actually accurate. Edited by Nachoo31

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I was just thinking that. People would have so much fun with a ~5% hit rate.

 

And then they'd complain about USN ships being OP because of the Ford Mk 1 Fire Control Computer.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You sure?   When I visited the Mighty Moe they said its guns could hit a Dime 2 miles away.  They were actually accurate.

 

With the new radar and upgraded ship after the 70-80s sure , but not in 1930

 

You can hit a can of soda on the other side of the world with today's tech

Edited by PrinzMakaay

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

With the new radar and upgraded ship after the 70-80s sure , but not in 1930

 

You can hit a can of soda on the other side of the world with todays tech

 

actually the Iowas employed 1940s radar, which suprisingly was better than 30s radar. though lets be honest, most of the targets that the Iowas faced were non-moving targets on land.:bajan:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

actually the Iowas employed 1940s radar, which suprisingly was better than 30s radar. though lets be honest, most of the targets that the Iowas faced were non-moving targets on land.:bajan:

 

That^

 

Can't agree more


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck with the real fire rate, true realism turning/stopping/maneuvering times would be enough for most to cry. 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You, I and a few other rivet-counters would appreciate it, but I imagine modifying WoWS to make a sim would still require a significant investment of time and money to refine the current engine and physics to a realistic level.

Simulators are a niche market, and naval combat even more so. There's a reason that the most recent naval combat sims are the likes of Steam and Iron- there's not enough of a market to support the development costs that 3D AAA graphics and physics modeling require. WoWS does as well as it does because it is more arcade like, which means it is accessible and easy to get into for casual players, which is 95%+ of the playerbase. It's absurd to expect WG to do all this work for free for a tiny fraction of us.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

With the new radar and upgraded ship after the 70-80s sure , but not in 1930

 

You can hit a can of soda on the other side of the world with today's tech

 

also on this, their fire control 'computers' (i use this term lightly) where never upgraded for the main guns, only missile guidance and radar tracking were upgraded. at least from what i have seen... someone please correct me if i am wrong.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After you get rid of repair party, damage control and give damage even to team rams you will have a flood of whine threads


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Ehmagerd! Muh Yamato is being attacked by 300+airplanes at the same time! Nerf CVs moar! Nerf realism!"

 

"Wargaming wth! 95% of the time I get ocean map! Please gimme more islands to hidez ma cruiser"

 

"Buff DDs! They no funsies since I can launch torps only once per match!"

 

 

meanwhile CV players go make a cup of tea while their airstrike is flying hundreds of kilometers to their destination

 

 


3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abandonloader and the Great Naval Battles series of games.  But no Brits vs Japanese, no Germans vs Italians, and no Russians at all.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not say'n it would be uber popular though.. ya never know.. all full on realistic as they can make it version of WOW would not be that difficult..  I'm just sure.. it might not be quite as "hard Core" as say Storm Eagle Studio's jutland or Distant Guns but thoe titles are not so much about commanding a single ship as commanding an entire fleet.   But a more or less hyper accurate within the limitations of the game engine.. with ((important caveate)) as little change to the basic game as possible..  Just use the historically correct numbers for everything..  and a historically accurate scale...yea map size would need to go up...pretty much 4x their current size to be playable..and a single 24 player match could take as long as a hour.  The game would be by nature very unforgiving of player errors... Move wrong, do wrong, you die..

 

Defiantly not every ones cup earl grey, hot...and just so the rest of us have even a remote chance of doing well, no CV's.. and no paper ships...    just a surface combat game... Carriers are just to powerfull.

 

And there would be no nerfs... ever...corrections perhaps.. but stats are the historically, technically correct ones for all guns, ships etc.

 

It would be a labor of love though..

 

and I'd play it..pretty, and hyper accurate.. yea, bring it on! 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

also on this, their fire control 'computers' (i use this term lightly) where never upgraded for the main guns, only missile guidance and radar tracking were upgraded. at least from what i have seen... someone please correct me if i am wrong.

 

They never modernized the FCS because it was already a reliable system. However, hitting a stationary dime 2 miles away isn't the same thing as hitting a maneuvering ship 20 miles (32.1 km) away. I'm sure the Iowa is fully capable of hitting targets at that range, but not with the reliability that people boast about/exaggerate.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silent Hunter? More hardcore then that is nothing that i can think of

 

​This is one of the games that got me and my Dad together... actually, I was mad at him sometimes since he hogged the computer all to himself.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IL-2 Sturmovik has COOP games where 6 or so players can man a single bomber, Pilot, co pilot bombardier, gunners..etc.

 

I wonder how this game would work if a few hundred players manned each station on a ship like captain, helmsman, gunners, damage control...etc. And on carriers all the guns and damage control manned plus individual pilots for the planes, plus gunners if needed.

 

Discipline would have to be the order of the day

 

Just a thought,

 

rustydawg


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

With the new radar and upgraded ship after the 70-80s sure , but not in 1930

 

You can hit a can of soda on the other side of the world with today's tech

 

I served as a gunners mate onboard the Uss Iowa in the 80's. We still used the EXACT same fire control as they used in the 40's for the main and secondary battery. When they were recommissioned in the 80's they could have built a modern fire control computer that would have been 1/100 the size of the MK-8 Range Keeper but they couldn't build one that did the job any better. The only additions we had were radar that measured the speed of the shells leaving the barrel but everything else was original. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They never modernized the FCS because it was already a reliable system. However, hitting a stationary dime 2 miles away isn't the same thing as hitting a maneuvering ship 20 miles (32.1 km) away. I'm sure the Iowa is fully capable of hitting targets at that range, but not with the reliability that people boast about/exaggerate.

 

With the Mk-8 Range Keeper you could input information like targets range, course, speed, wind speed, barometric pressure, temperature, temperature of the powder, sea state, your course, speed, it even corrected for the rotation of the earth. Once a firing solution was achieved it was continuously updated in real time. It made no difference if your target was maneuvering the computer would plot where the target WOULD BE when the shells landed. It didn't matter how much you maneuvered as well. Once the firing solution was set and maintained any US battleship equipped with it could bring very accurate fire no matter what the conditions are. The USS West Virginia demonstrated that capability at the battle of the Suriago Strait where she achieved a firing solution at 30k yards but waited to fire at 23. She scored a direct hit on her first salvo and continued to land accurate fire at a range where the Japanese could not return fire. It was like clubbing baby seals.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You, I and a few other rivet-counters would appreciate it, but I imagine modifying WoWS to make a sim would still require a significant investment of time and money to refine the current engine and physics to a realistic level.

Simulators are a niche market, and naval combat even more so. There's a reason that the most recent naval combat sims are the likes of Steam and Iron- there's not enough of a market to support the development costs that 3D AAA graphics and physics modeling require. WoWS does as well as it does because it is more arcade like, which means it is accessible and easy to get into for casual players, which is 95%+ of the playerbase. It's absurd to expect WG to do all this work for free for a tiny fraction of us.

 

The simple solution to that is start the timeline at 1880 or so and go to the end of WW1....no need for AAA, or Aircraft...yes there were sea-planes and zeppelins, but they were rarely seen at sea

But your right, prob not enough of a player base to warrant the time or money


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

With the Mk-8 Range Keeper you could input information like targets range, course, speed, wind speed, barometric pressure, temperature, temperature of the powder, sea state, your course, speed, it even corrected for the rotation of the earth. Once a firing solution was achieved it was continuously updated in real time. It made no difference if your target was maneuvering the computer would plot where the target WOULD BE when the shells landed. It didn't matter how much you maneuvered as well. Once the firing solution was set and maintained any US battleship equipped with it could bring very accurate fire no matter what the conditions are. The USS West Virginia demonstrated that capability at the battle of the Suriago Strait where she achieved a firing solution at 30k yards but waited to fire at 23. She scored a direct hit on her first salvo and continued to land accurate fire at a range where the Japanese could not return fire. It was like clubbing baby seals.

 

Shipmate, you are NOT allowed to use logic and RL experience in these threads.  I think it's in WG's TOS somewhere.  :)

 

HAVFND!

Whip

 

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Ehmagerd! Muh Yamato is being attacked by 300+airplanes at the same time! Nerf CVs moar! Nerf realism!"

 

"Wargaming wth! 95% of the time I get ocean map! Please gimme more islands to hidez ma cruiser"

 

"Buff DDs! They no funsies since I can launch torps only once per match!"

 

 

meanwhile CV players go make a cup of tea while their airstrike is flying hundreds of kilometers to their destination

 

 

 

I'd still play it. It will be a small percentage of the playerbase that played it but I'd most likely be one of them. I played the hell out of (that other tank and plane game's) tank simulator mode and while it wasn't true "simulator" it was still tons more fun than 3rd person arcade style, and the maps were sometimes really large and with no map markers so plenty of room to maneuver and flank.

 

 

With the Mk-8 Range Keeper you could input information like targets range, course, speed, wind speed, barometric pressure, temperature, temperature of the powder, sea state, your course, speed, it even corrected for the rotation of the earth. Once a firing solution was achieved it was continuously updated in real time. It made no difference if your target was maneuvering the computer would plot where the target WOULD BE when the shells landed. It didn't matter how much you maneuvered as well. Once the firing solution was set and maintained any US battleship equipped with it could bring very accurate fire no matter what the conditions are. The USS West Virginia demonstrated that capability at the battle of the Suriago Strait where she achieved a firing solution at 30k yards but waited to fire at 23. She scored a direct hit on her first salvo and continued to land accurate fire at a range where the Japanese could not return fire. It was like clubbing baby seals.

 

Imagine the cries of the weeaboos and wehraboos if Iowas had accurately modeled fire control. It would be glorious.

 

Except that those Iowas would be firing on their US predecessors like North Carolinas. I'm not a fan of mixed teams.

 

You know, I might like to try at least a US vs Japan mode at the very least. Very little about either nation's ships is modeled correctly in game but it would be interesting to see.

Edited by MrSparkle

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IL-2 Sturmovik has COOP games where 6 or so players can man a single bomber, Pilot, co pilot bombardier, gunners..etc.

 

I wonder how this game would work if a few hundred players manned each station on a ship like captain, helmsman, gunners, damage control...etc. And on carriers all the guns and damage control manned plus individual pilots for the planes, plus gunners if needed.

 

Discipline would have to be the order of the day

 

Just a thought,

 

rustydawg

 

 

Yeah - imagine your Capt steams you right into a pile of torps at the game start.  The [edited]/whining he would have to endure would be EPIC (do people still use this as a term?!)!!


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.