1MajorKoenig

Actually it is just 8x 11”. Super Cruiser would also be possible - and interesting - but I think era wise she would be a better fit for mid tiers.

The secondary guns are 4x2 10.5cm AA guns filling in as DP guns. The belt is 200mm I believe - I need to summon @Walther_K_Nehring for the correct value

One can certainly argue about that :-) The ship is probably somewhere between Graf Spee and Scharnhorst That’s why I thought about T6. The super cruiser idea is also nice - potently even better for for the more modern half-sister Kaffee mentioned (AA and such)

Ich habe einen Thread im englischen Teil aufgemacht mit einer Zusammenfassung “was bisher geschah”. Passt das soweit?

Habe das Konzept mal grundsätzlich in die Results aufgenommen (unter die AIII Boote). Frage: welche Boote sollen wir da aufführen? Der S100 Typ mit allen gewünschten Modifikationen sicherlich aber brauchen wir alle? Oder gibt es einen vorherrschenden Typ Mitte bis Ende der 30er?

:-) Finde auch, dass wir das langsam mal zusammentragen können. Ich fange mal an: Einsatzzweck ist es die Schaffung einer in der gesamten Nord— und Ostsee einsetzbaren und von den Marineverträgen unregulierte Streitmacht zu schaffen, die Überfallartig zuschlagen können soll. Vorzugsweise bei Nacht und schlechtem Wetter Wie viele Boote wollen wir aktiv halten? wie viele in Reserve? Welche Bootstypen gibt es 1935? Wollen wir selbst in die Entwicklung eingreifen oder sollen wir eine lineare Entwicklung bis zum S100 Typ annehmen? hatte ich richtig im Kopf dass ihr „unsere“ Bofors da draufhauen wollt?

Finde ich super!

Don’t get me wrong I am interested in these numbers. But I haven’t really seen a consensus on what KPI we should compare as the best discussion basis. I mean throwing around or comparing percentages is only useful or going anywhere if we all talk about the same kind of percentage. But to be a bit constructive I would suggest to either look at: - percentage of CVs among all ships in all games in randoms. Would be nice as you can directly apply this to game situations since we know how many ships are on one team. Plus I would exclude T4 as this tier is kind of problematic - alternatively could look at how many players are playing CVs in any given week among other ships. Meaning is different but nevertheless an interesting indicator. I would probably settle on of these two to try to make the question “are these things popular” a little more tangible

The problem is not to control naval planes in a warship game as you try to imply. I generally like RTS games much but in this case the whole thing didn’t work. It was just not immersive, not fun, Other games succeeded though - Battlestations used a combination of a rather bad RTS element (just as WOWS) game but combined that with good arcade action control of the planes. Both fighters and bombers. And put together it worked pretty well Ah. So a CV is not a warship

True - though I’d challenge if anyone liked the presentation. Some got to like the gameplay possibilities it gave you once you spent enough time watching the blue screen with the barely responsive green icons. Woooow But yea - fair enough. Some liked it. A lot didn’t

Nope. Again this 5 years old ? And no - the RTS mini game was not any difficult, it was pretty dumb. But the main drawback was that it was inherently unattractive. It was about as exciting as watching paint dry.

Nvm

Maybe because most of the dudes around are older than that (not to mention the game is 7 years +) and improved some talents ever since?

Simply not true dude. They are not “very rare” - independent what exactly you mean with that. They are not as much played as BBs - true but you don’t want 5 CVs per side either do you? Depends on how you call “not saying the truth”

True. Considering we expect to see only one CV per game 8% would be a reasonable number. 8% of all ships in all games (just for randoms btw?) in a certain timeframe that is. However - this is for example not how WG measures “popularity” - just saying. Still we would need to agree what the measurement is that we look at.

Am I? What is “popular”? What is the relevant figure? - Percentage of players playing at least one CV game per week? - average number of CVs in one game? Do we even expect more than one? - average % of games including a CV?

You are missing any point possible

You are throwing around these % as if these were scientific facts. One of the big changes before/after rework is that people now play CV among other classes whereas we had much more dedicated CV players before rework. So this whole discussion is missing the most basic basis to be any meaningful: what number are we looking at to determine “popularity” or whatever we want to discuss?

Hab auch 2015 angefangen und mochte die klare Rollenteilung zwischen Klassen einerseits und IJN/USN andererseits. Aber mir ist auch klar, dass mit mehr Content das ganze etwas vermischter ist. Insgesamt mag ich das Spiel auch heute noch - nicht alles aber ich bin froh, dass es weiterentwickelt wird und WG versucht die Spielerschaft bei der Stange zu halten. Was damals aber wirklich besonders war: das Diskutieren neuer Lines und der „What we know about ships“ Thread von MrAwesome. Da war noch wahnsinnig viel Vorfreude dabei

Added a convoy escort Lion/Princess Royal. But - what do we do with HMS Tiger?

Du verlierst dich wieder im klein-klein. Kein GG klar aber es ist doch wohl klar, dass der, der die Fighter Engagements gewinnt das Spiel im Griff hat. Und das ist nun komplett anders. Die ganzen Details tun nix zur Sache

Are you serious? Haven’t played her in ages but T22 used to the worst stinker in the line. Should I take her out again?

First sketch for a slightly refitted Lion / Princess Royal. My thinking was to position her more towards an escort ship with a large Hangar and seaplanes for convoy protection. Normally I would remove the Center turret and put a large Hangar there but I know WG would never remove primary guns - hence I left it and put a catapult on top. What do you think? Original Shipbucket drawing:

Did you seriously bother to change my quote to what you think I meant or was I that drunk that I don’t remember that I typed that line? Don’t say either way is possible but that’s not the point. So what is the measurement here? Games % with a CV in there? Players playing INCLUDING CVs? Mind you that CVs changed from a mostly geek class to a class which is played bit exclusively but inclusively. So all these graphs are nice to watch but what I see is: I see a lot of CVs at all tiers. Pre rework I swapped out any AA modules as I barely met ANY. While I give you that this is highly subjective I am not buying any of these graphs unless someone can properly explain what I see and I agree that this would be a reasonable measurement. Everything else is Blabla - sorry to be blunt

Ja Spieler machen alle Art komisches Zeug. Aber das wird in so einem Spiel halt immer so sein. Der Impact auf‘s Match und das Team war halt ein Problem. Wenn ich im ersten Fighter Engagement dem Gegner CV seine Fighter sauber dezimiere konnte man halt herrlich schalten wie man wollte. Spotting, gegnerische Bomber abfangen und Strikes. Das war für das Team des schlechteren CVs natürlich blöde. Heute können beide CVs ihre Dinge tun, spotten und striken. Klar merkt man da auch große Unterschiede aber so sollte es ja auch sein. Die Situation, dass ein Cv den anderen dominiert und dann frei Farmen geht gibt es aber eben nicht mehr und das ist schon mal ein Fortschritt