Historynerd

To be honest, both Von der Tann and Nassau seem rather OP for Tier 2... not considering all the issues about having BBs at that Tier...

I'd just like to point out that, rather than a review, this thread opened with a comparison between WoWs and Navy Field...

How did it work, exactly? Could you fit on a ship the various kind of armors (vertical, horizontal, and I guess some kind of underwater bulkhead) to your taste? To be honest, I'm not sure I would like this feature. Armor is one of the least thing that could be touched on a ship, surely less even of the main armament, and it had a huge influence on the ship design and structure. To have this kind of latitude... well, it just seems to me a little bit too far a-historical; but this is just my personal obsession.

Right.

In my opinion, the Alaska-class sits rather awkwardly between the cruiser and battlecruiser definitions... these 305 mm guns were rather powerful for their caliber, its protection was on a higher scale than anything ever achieved on a heavy cruiser, and its speed was a bit higher than almost all the fast battleship of the era. I'd rather see it classified as a battlecruiser, but if it comes as a cruiser... well, if they manage to balance it out, who am I to complain?

I guess that eventually it will come.

Very well, I'll look into it, thanks. And by the way, mine was no "final solution"; it was simply a statement corroborated by overwhelming historical evidence. I may have "arrogant armchair-general" tendencies, I admit it, but I try to base myself on facts such as these, and nothing else. But you're right, in the end I did jump the gun. I did misunderstand what you wrote and behaved in an arrogant way. Sorry; I'll try to be more considerate and humble in the future.

Alright, so please tell me what you meant, and try not to be so cryptic. And consider perhaps that this is partly your fault for not being clearer, when you told about "getting right submarine warfare", since not all of us played the game you mentioned, and especially considering how frustrating is the continuous mentioning of submarines in the forum. Had you been more precise, perhaps I wouldn't have jumped the gun.

Nice fact (even though not game-relevant, but we're off-topic anyway): it seems that the Italians did a pretty good job with their submarine-launched torpedoes. Look what NavWeaps say about the 53.3 cm 270 Veloce torpedo:

I played this too! Somewhat old, but still fun and interesting!

To keep beating the dead horse, submarines were never an organic part of any battlefleet in any engagement, while CVs, BBs, CA/CLs and DDs were. So, WoWs has the right stance on this particular thing. End of story.

It can be both, actually. and I know it especially because of my interest for history. Besides, I didn't say it has to be a wrong thing; merely that it shaped your views in such a way that makes it difficult for you to appreciate this game. And this is not a bad thing; we don't have to like every single game we try to play. My feelings are based on past experience, and I can't claim for it not even an ounce more of balance than your; it's merely an opinion I hold. I didn't want to claim that it was superior or held sway over to what you've said. My experience with naval history tells me that for every minute of actual battle there were days of doing absolutely nothing, or something inane and frustrating. I like the connection to that in this game, but this is just how I feel. I wouldn't even like it if everyone were to agree with me on this.

Apart from the balance and lag issues, which can be fixed, the rest of his analysis is heavily dependent on his past experience in playing Navy Field, i.e. on subjective factors. If he, basing himself on these factors, believes that the game is bad and requires minimal intelligence, he's free to do so. If we have a different impression, we're equally free to hold on to the same.

Alright, if you say so. I tried to play it, but I couldn't because of connection issues. I agree. The OP is entitled to have his opinion; however, as much as he has a right to find this game "boring", someone else has the same right to go and find it actually fun. Nothing wrong on both sides.

Navy Field and WoWs seem rather different; is it right to compare them?

Why, instead of asking people to give you things, don't you try and enjoy what you can already have by playing this game?

O'Hara is indeed one of the more recent authors who tried a more balanced approach to the question.

I tend to agree with you.

Does the player know? There are plenty of people who shoot torps without a chance of hitting the enemy, because they forgot to check the stats, the range, etc. Besides, IMHO it's far from as easy as you say...

That might be a valid proposal.

Maybe we should get more statistics before making potentially rash decisions here...

What if someone makes a honest mistake and kills a friendly accidentally? He'd be ruined without meaning it.

"Three-gun" is used as meaning that the three barrels have separate elevators and separate firing mechanisms, so they can elevate and fire in a completely indipendent manner.

Problem: how does the system know if someone is deliberately TKing, and didn't just commit a mistake? Or to be more precise, how it is supposed to know? If you got a valid idea about it, we're all ears...