Jump to content

Asmodaeus

Beta Tester
  • Content Сount

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan

    [OLDG]

About Asmodaeus

  • Rank
    Able Seaman
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Asmodaeus

    Kii is coming for you :D

    I like her a lot, but this is more because I have a deep affection for Japanese battleships, rather than the Kii being an exceptional battleship. She is a fairly good ship, but one which does have some features which I am not altogether comfortable with. Firstly, I find the anti-air is a breath of fresh air for someone used to the underwhelming aa on most Japanese ships. For once, one has the chance of downing enemy squadrons to manageable sizes before the first drop. If nothing else, the raw aa output makes the Kii a surprisingly powerful counter to any Kaga player that targets her due to the relatively fragile planes the latter carries. The guns do occasionally do rather wonky things,- enough in my case at least to feel less reliable than the Amagi. Nonetheless, ten of them make for a heavy broadside which usually (but not always) makes up for the lowered sigma. It's by no means bad, but I do wish it was higher due to the next factors. The Kii is fast in a straight line, but her rudder shift makes her a little bit of a pig in the turn. Not unexpected for a long battleship, but it does make her very slow to react to sudden threat, i.e. a hitherto hidden destroyer dropping torps nearby. The lack of torpedo bulges makes this quite a killer, and I find that destroyers deal an inordinate amount of damage to the ship, especially when said destroyers are higher tier. The armour is superficially better than the Amagi due to the heavier belt, but the extended ranges of tier VIII-X makes it less of an advantage than it'd appear. The turtleback felt negligible, and I find that the ship takes damage from high-calibre guns surprisingly easily (and not just citadels either) unless one constantly angles, which can minimize this deficiency significantly. Ideally one should always angle against other ships, but I find that in practice the rather low manoeuvrability makes this harder to pull off than in other battleships, same tier or higher (the Izumo being the glaring exception). The torpedoes are an interesting addition. I'll put it that way as I find they're a little too situational for my liking: if an enemy battleship is near enough to torp, either they've screwed up royally or they can smack you with a punishing broadside (even without citadels the high amidships makes the Kii easy to damage and the restricted forward arcs of the torps don't help). Anything else that close is probably going to torp you in return. With three per launcher and relatively low damage against ships equipped with torpedo belts, the Kii's torpedoes are seldom going to decide an engagement. Easier to just shotgun then in the face than turn to give a broadside. Finally, there's the detection that makes this ship a little less comfortable to play than the Amagi or the NC. There are times when one feels like a tier VIII Izumo in terms of being spotted, especially when it's on more open maps where an enemy destroyer can keep you spotted practically forever. The large health pool isn't quite enough to offset this in practice, I find, especially when tiered up against IXs and Xs who have the range to hit you from very far off, and thus ignore your armour belt completely. Similarly, destroyers (particularly Japanese ones) become more than a little lethal as keeping you (and thus your course) spotted becomes much easier. Guessing who might be spotting you (and thus being able to react accordingly) becomes harder to do when the answer could be either the battleship 15km away or a destroyer 7km away. High detection, a less effective armour scheme, relatively weak torpedo protection, and low manoeuvrability make the Kii actually feels quite fragile for her tier. Because of this, I'd have like her to have had slightly better accuracy than she has at the moment: if she is the battleship version of a glass cannon, then it would have been nice to have slightly better sigma to offset the relative fragility. I say relative fragility, because we are still talking about a battleship, but that I think just a little more accuracy would distinguish the ship a little further from the Amagi and make it just that touch more easy and comfortable to play. I do like her, but she's a ship that one needs to be careful with and thus not one that will appeal to everyone, especially not when you have such strong alternatives like the Alabama or the Tirpitz which are at the same tier and have the same premium advantages.
  2. Asmodaeus

    Kii in the shop

    Many thanks! Hadn't thought to look there since I had every other filter set to show everything. :)
  3. Asmodaeus

    Kii in the shop

    Bought the bundle (as I'm frankly crazy for the ships of the 8-8 Fleet) but I'm having the same problem. Camo mission completed, but nothing appearing in the camouflage tab.
  4. I'll grant you the Nelson is probably more suited to being at Tier VII with the other Big Seven, but I'd at least like to think that the N3 has potential considering the 18-inch guns and heavy armour, although the 23knt speed does count heavily against it. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about how real life stats directly correspond with gameplay stats so I can't much comment on that aspect. WHat are your thoughts on the G3 though? I remember reading in Brown's Nelson to Vanguard which suggests that the G3 was comparable if not superior !on paper! to the Iowa.
  5. True enough, especially when there are probably more than enough real ships laid down to fill up a tech tree. And I do agree with you about the gun progression argument. Scharnhorst here would be an excellent example of a ship that is nominally under-gunned for its tier but still very playable.
  6. I actually agree, with that as not every ship has a line it could fit in, Vanguard being a prime example. With regards to paper ships, I'm in two minds about them as on the one hand, many do represent linear developments of ships and can thus fill in a tech tree that would otherwise be difficult to stretch to tier X. On the other hand, the fact that they are paper ships makes it very easy to jiggle around the stats into something that can only be called 'ill-advised'.
  7. I think if firstly, there is at least a modelling issue should they bring in Rodney as the regular ship as she and Nelson differed fairly noticeably by the end of the war. Secondly I should like to say that while Scharnhorst was launched earlier, it is still not the ship in the tech tree,- which is the 1943 plan to rebuild the Gneisenau and was never applied to the Scharnhorst,- nor was it universally acknowledge as the lead ship of the class by some publications outside of the west which instead went by which was commissioned first. And I've not said the game is going to break down in any way. My point is more focused on the message of making a lead ship a premium rather than a regular, as well as how it would fit into game considering one of the reasons why Wargaming took it out of the current tech tree in the first place was because it played too differently to the Queen Elizabeth and the King George V. I just think making it a premium is a bad idea in the first place. What I said was if they must introduce it into the game,- and they are planning to in patch 6.10,- that they should instead make it HMS Rodney so that the class as a whole remains accessible for those who may not which to purchase or convert experience, while the premium should be there to offer a unique version to those who may wish to purchase it.
  8. I did think of the Scharnhorst, and while I would agree with you, there are at least 2 reasons why the Gneisenau was chosen as the regular 'representative' ship over the Scharnhorst. Firstly (and more superficially), Gneisenau was, while never considered the leadship of her class by western publications, laid down and commissioned earlier than her sister ship the Scharnhorst. Indeed some publications call it the Gneisenau-class although I think,- and don't quote me on this,- those were primarily German publications near and around the period. Secondly and much more pertinently, the specific model we have of Gneisenau in WoWs is actually that of her proposed rebuild after she was bombed in 1942. WHile there were intentions of replacing the 11-inch guns of both ships before the outbreak of war, the model we have in-game, with the longer bow, updated secondary battery and 15-inch guns, is very specifically the one drawn up for Gneisenau in 1942 and was never intended for Scharnhorst. If you had renamed it Scharnhorst, that would not merely be unhistorical, it would be outright wrong. In the case of Gneisenau and Scharnhorst, you have a very exceptional circumstance which has allowed Wargaming to make a lead ship a premium. To stress: this is an exception, not a rule.
  9. A pithy answer would be to say that anything is of course possible, but that's obviously not a helpful answer. Ahem. To answer your first question, I'm not opposed to the issue of xp vs money. A premium ship is there as an option for purchase, not a necessity, hence why it's not something I take issue with or something that I address above. However, I think, by and large, premium ships have by and large always represented individual members of a class,- consider the difference between the Kirov and the Molotov, or the Missouri vs the Iowa,- whereas regular ships in the tech tree should represent classes as a whole. As it is Nelson which is the name- and lead-ship of the class, I feel that it should be kept as a regular member of a future tech tree line, whereas Rodney should be made the premium and thus modelled as such. I am merely making the suggestion that Wargaming rather hedge its bets now rather than later, and that it would be rather strange, if Rodney were to represent her class rather than Nelson who was, as I've said, the leadship and thus foremost representative thereof.
  10. An Open Suggestion to Wargaming – The Nelson-class battleships, Premiums, and Tech trees. As most people will be aware, the British battleship line was probably the most anticipated line in World of Warships this year,– and probably one of the most asked for lines since the release of the game. However, it is my impression,– I could be mistaken,– that there has been a fairly ambivalent response from the community as to how the Nelson will be released as a XP premium like the Missouri. While I would argue that the Nelson-class should not be released as XP premium ships, I would like to take the opportunity to show precisely why,– for historical and tech tree reasons,– Wargaming should not inadvertently close potential future avenues of expanding the British tech tree by blocking the Nelsons in as premiums. In this short essay, I would therefore like to suggest a simple alternative solution to releasing HMS Nelson as a premium ship as well as also suggest how an in-depth look at the historical development of British battleships and British battlecruisers could show Wargaming how it could in future bring in the Nelson-class battleships as regular members of a fully-fledged line of British battleships. (For the tl;dr version, please skip down to the conclusion. For a more technical look at why, continue on.) Historical development and its implications on the British battleship line. There is a tendency to conflate the historical order in which ships were built with design evolution,– e.g. Queen Elizabeth => Nelson => King George V,– even though this does not reflect the reality of warship design from the First to the Second World Wars. An understanding of the broadly linear nature of naval architecture actually makes building a tech tree for World of Warships easier, and is essential to understanding the place of as unique a class of ships as the Nelsons, which neither resemble the battleships the preceded nor followed them. World War I battleship design in Britain was heavily influenced by the ideas of Jackie Fischer, whose championing of the battlecruiser caused the British naval establishment to develop concurrently two types of capital ships, as opposed to one homogenous type like the US Navy’s Standard-type battleships. Slow and heavily armoured battleships were relegated to a 23knt speed for homogeneous line-of-battle actions, while battlecruisers were used as light cavalry as thus were built to be significantly faster but more lightly armoured. While this seems simple in theory, the significant overlap between battleship and battlecruiser design makes this very had to keep in mind with the appearance of the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships, which were touted as the world’s first ‘fast’ battleships. What is most important to take from this is to remember that the British naval architects of the period thought in terms of ‘slow’ battleships and battlecruisers as this affected warship design in the immediate interwar period and thus has important ramifications on how any British battleship line is to be developed in World of Warships. Essentially, British design was built in linear fashion, which each succeeding class being more heavily armed, more heavily armoured, or faster. One can trace a clear line of improvement,– much like the tier system in World of Warships,– just by a cursory glance at the battleships and battlecruisers up till the Washington Naval Treaties. For our purposes, we will concentrate on the relationship between the final classes of World War I, Revenge-class battleships, the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships, the Renown-class battlecruisers and the Admiral-class battlecruisers. Slower than the preceding Queen Elizabeths, the Revenge-class is a quintessential ‘slow’ battleship, featuring similar armour and armament, but slower and consequently smaller. At 21knts, she matches the speed of earlier ships like the Iron Duke-class battleships. In contrast, the Renowns shed a gun turret and significant amounts of armour to reach 32knts. Originally laid down as improvements of the Revenges, they were around 30 meters longer and fit in as a battlecruiser analogue to the Revenges and the Queen Elizabeths. The odd one out are the Queen Elizabeths, who, featuring heavy armour and a top speed of 25knts,– comfortably in between the speed of the ‘slow’ Revenges and the battlecruiser Renowns,– they fit into neither category of ‘slow’ battleship or battlecruiser. In contrast, the Admiral-class is what you get if you stretch the Queen Elizabeth class into a battlecruiser without compromising armour or armament: a 32knt Queen Elizabeth at Tier VII that is unsurprisingly squishy when placed against Tier VIIIs. However, convergent evolution and universal utility is what led to the Queen Elizabeths becoming the template for future battleships, with the slow, all-gun-forward arrangement of the Nelsons being discarded and the lightly armoured battlecruisers seeing general extinction after the 1920s, the Alaska large cruisers and a number of unrealised designs notwithstanding. Revenge, Renown and Queen Elizabeth essentially illustrate three different paths of development that British naval design could go down: the ‘slow’ battleship, the battlecruiser, and the ‘fast’ battleship which acts as a synthesis and middle ground between the former two. In terms of World of Warships. What this means is that Wargaming actually has the potential to develop three battleship/battlecruiser lines rather than the current one or even the potential two that most were thinking of when building their own versions of the British tech tree. The place of the Nelson-class battleships One argument seen in the discussions and Q&As regarding the Nelson-class is that the developers did not wish to disrupt the gameplay style of the Queen Elizabeth-Conqueror line by introducing a slow all-gun-forward battleship into an otherwise conventional line. Speaking frankly, this seems a fairly weak argument when one takes certain examples already in-game into account. We have already seen significant gameplay changes when switching tiers in World of Warships. The clearest illustration of this would be to bring up the Amagi-Izumo shift, where a modernized battlecruiser which is arguably more heavily armed in the rear leads to a broad beamed all-gun-forward battleship. Other ships which feature similar shifts would be the move from the armoured St. Louis to the fast but fragile Phoenix, or the slow but manoeuvrable Bayern to the speedy Gneisenau. A more convincing argument against placing Nelson after the Queen Elizabeth would be to point to the development of warship design around the end of the First World War, where Nelson and its progenitor design, the N3 battleships, represent the ‘slow’ battleship line perfectly. In contrast, the Queen Elizabeth-class after modernization and the King George V-class are much closer relations, with the KGVs being faster, far better armoured, more lightly armed and visually similar to the earlier modernized class. Building three lines: ‘slow’ battleships, ‘fast’ battleships, and battlecruisers While I hesitate in building a tech tree, I would like to at least suggest how historical development would translate in terms of the tech tree, where gaps in the lines exist and thus need further research to fill them in. This tech tree would be predicated on the idea that we have three different lines to accommodate the different evolutionary trees of British battleship and battlecruiser design: ‘slow’ battleships, ‘fast’ battleships, and battlecruisers. As most here are probably aware, there are quite enough historical classes to easily fill out three lines, from tier III to tier V. However, it is from tier VI up that things get complicated, which is why I’ll focus primarily on those. A preliminary outline of how things would look follows thus: Tier VI : Revenge; Queen Elizabeth; Renown Tier VII : ???; King George V; Admiral Tier VIII : Nelson; (Monarch); J3 Tier IX : ???; Lion; G3 Tier X : N3; (Conqueror); I3 Each line should have a theme or idea behind it so as to differentiate them from one another and also offer players an incentive for grind up the different lines. While speed would be the primary theme of the battlecruisers and, as it seems to be shaping up with the Conqueror, heavy armament for the ‘fast’ battleships, heavy armour should be the theme of the ‘slow’ battleship line, where ships were designed to fight in broadside battles and still come out swinging. Here, the Nelson-class sits at tier VIII with their heavy armour and 16-inch guns, as they were capable of pummelling the Bismarck under favourable circumstances and thus toe-to-toe should they meet equally in-game. However, the one that would appear at tier VIII would be Nelson in her 1945 configuration, with a greatly bolstered anti-aircraft battery to allow her to fend off enemy carrier planes which become increasingly lethal as you rise in the tiers. The N3-class, with their even heavier armour and 18-inch guns would sit at the top of the line. Although they possess a turret less than the Conqueror, the N3s outclassed all other contemporary battleships when it was designed in terms of armour and armament, and after some modernization of their anti-aircraft armament, it would not be unrealistic to imagine them slugging it out with the other tier Xs. The G3-class is actually a surprise in terms of its placement in the tree as they are, in truth, battlecruisers only in name. Featuring heavier armour than the Iowa-class battleships, they would play more like fast battleships, essentially revealing how the different evolutionary branches eventually converged towards the idea of a universal battleship,– similar to how heavy tanks and medium tanks eventually converged into the modern main battle tank. As can be seen, gaps exist in both lines, for the tiers VII and IX of the ‘slow’ battleship line, and the tiers VIII and X or the battlecruiser line. Knowing British design history after the end of the First World War will reveal no shortage of high-tier potentials due to the number of super-battleship designs that were cut down by the Washington Naval Treaties, including the J3, a battlecruiser design very similar to the Monarch-class, which feature three triple 15-inch guns in conventional arrangement; and the I3 which features somewhat heavier armour than the G3s but an 18-inch main armament. For those missing in the ‘slow’ battleship line, I have deliberately chosen to omit them as there are possibly two potential areas where one could find candidates. Either one could look at the preliminary designs of the Nelsons, i.e. P3 & Q3, to find potentials to fill in the gaps in tiers VII, or one could look instead to the 1928 and 1935 design studies for potential tier IXs. Conclusion As shown above, it is fully possible for Wargaming to build three fully fledged battleship-battlecruiser lines for the British in World of Warships,– an opportunity which should not be squandered by placing the Nelson-class battleships outside of the regular tree. Were the lead ship of the Nelson-class to become a premium, it would make for some awkward tech tree shuffling and renaming in future should Wargaming later on decide that it would like to build a second or third British battleship line, which is highly probable as adding new tech tree lines is the most viable way Wargaming has of expanding the game. Instead, if Wargaming nonetheless insists on releasing a Nelson-class battleship as a premium ship, I think if would be a better decision,– in light of the reasons above,– to make the premium HMS Rodney, rather than HMS Nelson. Premiums should always be there to offer something special to players, which is why they by and large should represent specific members of a class rather than ship-classes as a whole. This is something that makes them an attractive purchase for players without removing the free2play aspect of a MMO,– better to let all players experience a ship class rather than placing something as well-known and iconic as the Nelson-class battleships (or even the Kii-class battleships but that’s an argument for another day) behind a monetary or experience wall that most players will need to use substantial real money to overcome. If nothing else, Wargaming will be better able to deflect critics of the game economy while also retaining the goodwill of players who wish to experience these ships but have not the means to pay for what would be a fairly expensive bit of experience conversion. With HMS Hood, the Bismarck and the Prinz Eugen already in the game, the addition of another veteran of the drama surrounding the sinking of the Bismarck will be very much welcomed by the history buffs amongst the community, as well as leaving Wargaming the option in future of using the Nelson-class as a regular ship in a ‘slow’ battleship line for the British in future. I was uncertain as to whether this should have been posted here or in the gameplay forum, so if a moderator would be so kind as to help move it if I've placed it in error, then I would very much appreciate it. To everyone reading this, I only ask that you be kind and constructive with your criticism. Thank you.
  11. Asmodaeus

    Akagi and Kaga

    Personally, while I do believe that the carriers should be kept as regular, non-premium ships, I also think that the danger of having premium carriers may be blown slightly out of proportion. Yes, there is a danger that many inexperienced players will be able to easily get their hands on a high tier vessel. However, said-vessel is of a class that plays differently from every other ship class in the game. Carriers, in my opinion, are not an easy class to play well,- due to the level of micromanagement, map-awareness and tactical awareness needed to really excel. An inexperienced carrier player is not hard to differentiate from a veteran, especially in high-tier games where the planes are faster and more numerous. (I would like to add that I am by no means an experienced CV player. I tend to practice in low tier battles to get used to the mechanics and rank up my commanders until I feel able to handle high tier cv gameplay even though I have a high-tier carrier in the port. Self-control and awareness of my own lack of experience in cvs is what stops me from derping in the latter and screwing over my team.) Regarding the issue of being a premium and thus available for anyone to purchase, I think we should take the example of the Tirpitz. Every Tom, [edited]and Harry went to purchase it when it was first released, and the MM went insane. Tirpitzs all over the place,- until the hype died down and business returned to usual. I find that getting sunk repeatedly by players who actually knows what he or she is doing is an exceedingly sure way of discouraging inexperienced 'wallet-warriors' from exploiting the short-cut given by a premium ship. Nowadays, Tirpitzs can still be found quite easily in tier 8 games, but generally in reasonable numbers and driven (on average) by both good players and bad,- a very normal state of affairs. I think that if premium carriers were to be introduced, we'd have a similar issue,- slightly skewed MM for about a month till the hype died down and the... less experienced *cough cough* get discouraged after being trounced a few times by those who actually know how to play carriers,- before things return to the status quo. For these reasons I've given above, I think that having premium carriers is... ill-advised, but also nowhere near the utter disaster people are making it out to be.
  12. Asmodaeus

    Aviation Cruiser Gameplay - A Suggestion for Wargaming

    Hear, hear! It would be interesting to see an extended post on the most pressing issues though. Any good threads of the sort? I'm thinking,- no promises,- of compiling one for those as well, but I need sources,- preferably as many as possible,- so as to give a balanced presentation of things as they stand.
  13. Asmodaeus

    Aviation Cruiser Gameplay - A Suggestion for Wargaming

    To everyone who has been so kind as to reply or like the post, I must say: thank you all most kindly I am glad to see that, at the very least, people are considering the ideas in the post with an open mind. As Mtm78 and Mk_sky have both pointed out, very little of this is actually novel, and much of it is actually drawn from the three sources given in the original post. However, I find that compiling the relevant points that people make and thinking about what people have said on the level of overall gameplay helps significantly when presenting such ideas,- from bug fixes to gameplay mechanic suggestions,- to the EU community as a whole and to Wargaming. ColonelPete, on 16 October 2015 - 03:06 PM, said: Instead of launching one catapult fighter, certain ships should be able to launch two fighters for one activation of the ability. The reconnaissance plane of aviation cruisers could also provide buffs für nearby allies (spread reduction of main guns by 5% or range increase for main guns of 10%...) I do completely agree with RamirezKurita on the point of the Ise: as a brief offshoot from the Kongo, it would be an alternative to the Fuso at tier VI, with its unique quality being the ability to mount an aviation hull, before branching back into the Nagato. If this were to happen, the Ise's unique hull upgrade,- much like an alternative aviation cruiser route,- offers battleship players an incentive into researching and playing both ships at tier VI. I must say though, I'm not altogether keen on the idea of catapult squadrons, catapult dive bombers, or planes that provide passive buffs to allied ships, which both RamirezKurita and ColonelPete have suggested,- not because they are bad ideas (in fact I actually like the idea), but because we have no precedent for either mechanic in the game. As I've stated before, I've gone the way that should,- as far as I know,- involve the least work in development and gameplay mechanic changes, as I believe that makes the proposal more attractive for a company like Wargaming, which seems extremely eager to release more premium ships as quickly as possible. Fewer changes are likely to be easier to implement, and consequently, have less reason for Wargaming to reject them as serious proposals. Thank you! I'm glad to hear you like the proposal. I do agree that the IJN Tone is certainly a very different kind of ship to the Mogami or the Ises, and particularly with the latter being redesigned very much to ship carrier-style attack aircraft rather than reconnaissance float planes or interceptors. However, when translating this into gameplay terms, I suspect that Wargaming,- like most companies,- would prefer a slightly simplified approach both in what is being proposed to it and what it wants to give its players, many of whom are more interested in gameplay than the specifics of each class of ship. As I'm writing this in the hopes that it will be taken into serious consideration by someone at Wargaming,- however minuscule that chance may be,- I've chosen to simply categorize all potentially relevant ships under the heading of 'aviation cruiser' even if they only fit the categorization poorly at best. I quite agree there are many other issues that need to be fixed, but I rather also hope that any serious contribution to addressing any issue,- big or small,- may be welcomed on these forums. I'm thinking very much in the long-term,- so perhaps a year or two down the line, once the major nations have been added and Wargaming is thinking of adding new lines to the existing techtrees,- and I merely thought, as I'm sure many who are interested in Japanese cruisers are as well, that it would be a shame for Wargaming to deny itself the opportunity in future to add a line of aviation cruisers to the Japanese techtree, especially when it has little reason to deny itself any opportunity to add more content to tthe game in the future Again, thank you all for your patience in reading and your kind comments
  14. To Whom It May Concern at Wargaming EU, The planned introduction of the Tone into World of Warships as a premium vessel has,- as Jingles puts it,- rustled some jimmies. From the three threads on the forums concerning the vessel,- two English, one German,- there is certainly no small amount of dissatisfaction with the idea that the Tone will merely play as another block-standard cruiser, as shown: This is due to the recognition of the IJN Tone, and indeed other similar vessels in the Imperial Japanese Navy, by the community as having qualities that separate them from the existing cruiser line. This in turn has given much hope that some unique mechanic would be devised by Wargaming to reflect this in-game. Suggestions for a unique mechanic for the hybrid carrier-cruiser effectively fall within two categories: the first is to give aviation cruisers the ability to launch planes in the same way that carriers currently do in game: Or to give them an an increased ability to send out catapult fighter planes: Speaking frankly, I believe that Wargaming is justified in turning down the first gameplay mechanic suggestion: it fits into the pattern seen in World of Tanks regarding SPG overhead view; it demands a great deal of time a development for a gameplay mechanic that will only see use on a very select number of ships; and it will most likely demand a significant amount of multitasking from players that will most likely be impossible to sustain in a fast-paced 20 minute game. However, I also believe that Wargaming is also making a mistake in so quickly pursuing the line that the IJN Tone will be a premium T7 ship, to be implemented as it is at the moment, as: it negates a significant amount of potential for the IJN Tone to be used in a future update to the techtree; it disappoints many avid players of Japanese ships who were expecting something significantly more interesting; and it locks out the potential of gameplay to involve more than the rock-paper-scissors dynamic that currently underpins the different ship classes. The following are a number of suggestions and observations, based on in-game experiences and a rather large amount of brain-storming, which may find a solution which will satisfy those hoping for a unique mechanic and also allow Wargaming to proceed with the implementation of the IJN Tone without closing off any potential avenues for future content expansion, without requiring significant changes to the gameplay mechanics as they currently stand. A) The Implementation of IJN Tone as an Aviation Cruiser Three main concerns must factor into the implementation of new types of ships such as IJN Tone and other aviation cruisers: i) To offer a distinct form of gameplay as an incentive to grind up alternate routes up the techtree ii) To fulfill a different but potentially rewarding role on the battlefield iii) To maintain game balance - overall balance in World of Warships + balanced stats of individual warships in relation to their tier. all with minimum changes to gameplay mechanics and minimum demands on the game developers. This final point is important as Wargaming is ultimately a game company with finite resources: it is highly unlikely, or unusual for anything to be developed unless the potential reward can justify the expense in time, energy and resources. Thus, the implementation of a ship that is able to switch from a carrier overhead view with separate air-wings and a traditional line of sight third person shooter would be both complex and in many ways unable to justify its own expense, as only the Imperial Japanese Navy developed aviation cruisers in any significant number. It must be said that the idea of aviation-cruisers is also rather deceptive in terms of gameplay as it leads people think that a hybrid like the IJN Tone should be able to fulfill the role of carrier and cruiser simultaneously. Instead, I would like to frame this as a question of cart and horse: which do you place at the forefront? With regards to the IJN Tone and other Japanese aviation cruisers, I would like to suggest that they be thought of as cruisers first and carriers a very, very distant second. This must be well-established as it underpins the following ideas regarding how these types of ships should be implemented: they are cruisers with increased aircraft capabilities, rather than carriers with cruiser guns and arrangements. i) Why make the IJN Tone, and other aviation cruisers, at all different from other Japanese cruisers? The first answer that comes to mind is that it offers the players something different to play with. This is the basic appeal of having alternative lines up the techtrees of World of Tanks for example: do you choose the autoloading T57 Heavy or the T110E5? The distinct differences between the two lines is a choice that Wargaming offers its players and serves as an incentive to grind up both lines. If they were the same, there would be no reason to try the other. I would like to suggest that this is the point of making the IJN Tone and other aviation cruisers different. Players will need to adapt their gameplay to suit a different style of ship,- in the same way that an IJN destroyer is different from a USN destroyer,- and it keeps the game interesting for players who might otherwise have gotten tired of essentially the same kind of gameplay. ii) The difference in play style suggests that the IJN Tone and other aviation cruisers should play a slightly more specialized role in comparison to the usually aggressive and mercurial gameplay of traditional cruisers. What makes aviation cruisers different is their aircraft complement: being often significantly larger than comparable regular cruisers. What I would like to suggest is very similar to Transpite's suggestion: allow the IJN Tone and other aviation cruisers to send up more than one plane at a time. However, I am not suggesting multiple fighters as that idea runs the risk of disproportionately lessening the threat of aircraft carriers. Rather, in keeping with historical realism, where such ships were used to scout rather than to dog-fight with enemy ships, I would like to suggest that aviation cruisers should be given instead 4 consumable slots rather than the usual 3. Whereas most cruisers have: damage control party + defensive aa + catapult fighter or reconnaissance aircraft; Aviation cruisers should have: damage control party + defensive aa + catapult fighter + reconnaissance aircraft. All aircraft should remain consumables on these aviation cruisers,- which invites highly competitive players to use premium consumables, to the monetary benefit of Wargaming (and this must be stated as Wargaming is first and foremost a game company),- and the ability to simultaneously send up one catapult fighter and one scout, with a large reserve of aircraft to spare, is a unique enough mechanic without demanding significant changes on gameplay. The advantages of sending up both scout and fighter aircraft simultaneously means that a player need not choose between spotting capabilities and anti-air defence, as is the case with most other cruisers at the moment. Being able to do both, the IJN Tone and other aviation cruisers are able to play ideal escorts for the main body of the fleet. In addition, the ability of scout aircraft to extend their range allows aviation cruisers the ability to sail as second line fighters and deal damage from afar,- highly important as their role as escorts means they need to keep closer to their own teammates and consequently farther from the enemy. Like the Atlanta, whose anti-aircraft capabilities serve as a significant deterrent to enemy carrier based planes, aviation cruisers would be able to lower the threat of carriers, particularly mid-to-late game, when concentrated air attack becomes increasingly lethal due to the lower numbers of ships,- and thus aa guns,- on each team. In addition, the ability to scout also becomes more important as games progress due to one side or other needing to hunt down an enemy or spot an otherwise invisible enemy in a far off capture point. The fact that an aviation cruiser has four consumable slots, as I've suggested, means that a captain need not compromise between spotting and aa,- a significant advantage provided he is able to stay alive long enough to capitalize on potential opportunities. iii) How balanced would an aviation cruiser be assuming it were implemented in the way outlined above? I think fairly balanced: aviation cruisers inherently sacrifice surface firepower for increased aircraft capabilities. Not only does the IJN Tone and other aviation cruisers have fewer guns than other equivalent cruisers, but many also suffer heavily,- a la Izumo,- from having highly limited or awkward firing arcs, making them highly unsuited to leading a push or even conducting a running retreat. This relegates such vessels to the role of a second line fighter, close enough to support and escort first line fighters, or an fighter of opportunity, using its guns to take out unsuspecting or heavily damaged enemies. Second line cruisers can be found most recently in the German cruiser line, where poor armour and long gunnery ranges leads them to play more conservatively. In the case of the IJN Tone and aviation cruisers, the reasons for conservative gameplay are lesser firepower and poor armour. Will they be overpowered, i.e. against aircraft? No, I don't believe so: carriers will have just as much chance of shooting their aircraft down as with normal cruisers, and with one catapult fighter being up at any given time, aircraft carriers will not be disproportionately disadvantaged when sending out a strike force against aviation cruisers and their escorted charges. Seeing how a single catapult fighter can still cause enough of a distraction for carrier fighters for a targeted ship's aa to knock out a few more planes, I believe that aviation cruisers should not be able to send up any more than one at a time. I do, however, suggest that aviation cruisers be given a larger complement of aircraft on board, firstly as this is in keeping with historical realism, and secondly as the ability to both spot and cover allies with a catapult fighter is the professed schtick of this rather specialized class of ships, they should only rarely be in a situation where they have run out of aircraft to send out. This, in my opinion, is more than enough of a unique mechanic to reflect the unusual qualities of such vessels. B) IJN Tone: Regular vs Premium I must answer the question: why should the IJN Tone be a regular ship rather than a premium one? The answer is that the option of adding a regular and complete line of aviation cruisers to the Japanese techtree should be kept open to Wargaming, rather than being closed to it by making one of its more notable members a premium vessel. MMOs rely on regular updates and content expansion to remain alive and interesting for its player base: it makes very little sense for Wargaming to essentially deny itself the opportunity to use the IJN Tone as a regular ship when it could easily be incorporated into an alternative regular cruiser line. If any one remembers the creation of the second German heavy tank line in World of Tanks, they should be able to recall how the opportunity of using the Löwe as a regular heavy tank was completely wasted as it had already been implemented into the game as a premium vehicle. If Wargaming is wholly determined to release the ship as a premium, even after implementing the features outlined above, I would at the very least recommend that it be given an Atago-style paintjob and renamed the Chikuma (1938). Yes, it may seem like a cop out, but it at the least keeps the option open for Wargaming to add more content in future based around the IJN Tone and other aviation cruisers, rather than closing it indefinitely. C) Potential aviation cruiser line I've spoken much about the IJN Tone and a potential aviation cruiser line; how might this look like? This must be answered as it is one of the reasons why I believe Wargaming should keep the IJN Tone as a regular ship: it fits naturally into a developmental line with other ships that could appear in-game in the future. Well, considering my knowledge is rather sub-par when it comes to earlier vessels, I'd have to say that I would imagine a split around tier V, much like the Russian heavy tree at the moment which branches off from the KV-1. Below is just how I've constructed a a potential line in my mind, with the firepower of the potential aviation cruisers written below. V VI VII VIII Furutaka =====> Aoba =====> Myoko =====> Mogami (6 x 203mm) (6 x 203mm) (10 x 203mm) (10 x 203mm) || || Agano =====> Ooyodo =====> Mogami (1944) =====> Tone (6 x 152mm) (6 x 155mm) (6 x 203mm) (8 x 203mm) I've yet to think of potential tier IX s and X s, and while people may suggest the Ise (1944), I would rather have the Ise as an alternative tier VI to the Fuso, with the aviation-battleship hull as an optional hull upgrade. This is due to the fact that the 8 x 356mm guns on what is essentially a better armoured but much slower tier VI Kongo would seem like pea-shooters in a tier IX or X match. Combined with the highly limited firing arcs of the Ise's middle two turrets, and it's not difficult to imagine how little fun playing such a ship would be in so hostile an environment. I realize that firepower is by no means the best indicator of a ship's capabilities, but I find it serves as a basic yardstick to show how the principle of an in-game aviation cruiser would compare with the existing ships in-game: lesser firepower than its fellows of the same tier, but with enhanced abilities to support its team from the second line. Thank you for taking the time to read this, and I sincerely hope that the points therein will be taken into consideration. IJN Tone threads on the forums: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/33759-ijn-tone-general-thread/ http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/32514-ijn-tone-wg-logic-at-display-yet-again-gameplay-whats-that/ http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/32162-tone/ Quotes at the top were taken from the first two sources.
  15. Asmodaeus

    what about Musashi?

    Considering how premium tier Xs are treated in World of Tanks, I wouldn't be surprised if the Musashi appeared as a reward ship of sorts in the fairly distant future.
×