Karasu_Browarszky

I don't see a problem.. Catastrophically, perhaps?

Fortunately I did not.

It's funny how in the old days those 20km range torps hit pretty often.

.... you,.... git gud? More islands outside the maps? I can agree with that!

Was that cricket?...

The one thing about having a random map generator is that it will be entirely random by nature which can crate problems for gameplay balance. Imagine having all the islands randomly pop up just on one side of the map, for instance. What I had in mind was having a mixture of fixed and random elements. At it's crudest it would mean that there could fixed random locations where some change (typically an island) of map 'terrain' can occur. The islands could vary in size and shape as well. I'm assuming that the more random the maps would be, in other words, the more difficult it would be handle for the game engine, and possibly for the teams. However, if WG would get the mixture just right, things might in deed become interesting again.

That seems to describe the situation well. The Ocean, the same as any map currently, depends on the cap mechanic to make any tactical sense of the battle, because we need the caps to provide us with tactical 'objectives' due to lack of battle plans, formations, and at most times it's not that we lack an admiral giving orders, but there are almost as many admirals as there are ships... The Ocean does not need islands, but it needs caps. All maps need the caps, so the question really is about the islands. On most maps there are way too many, they are poorly placed, and hinder game play and tactical maneuvers beyond what is good for immersive playstyle, or any kind of playstyle for that matter (except for the 'hide behind islands quack a mole pacman style' gameplay which... I do not appreciate.) What I get out of this thread, we need some islands for tactical variety, as most cap zones are fixed. Then again.. so are the islands. If they would redesign the maps to have less clutter in terms of the islands, there might be some fixed islands... and then some randomly placed islands that would allow for a lot more variety of tactical options varying from battle to battle. There'd be less of those battles where you just turn off your brain and use your internal autopilot.. or even the in game autopilot... I do realise that reducing the number of islands and integrating them into an immersive, open water play style would require an across the board rebalancing of all ship classes (but I feel it is warranted and had been much better use of WG's resources than the underwater stuff they worked on for two years......). With relatively few changes, mapwise, balancewise, the game would force us players to rethink our own tactical preferences and playstyle as well provide a dynamic environment fostering much more variety in terms of the gaming experience. Which, IMHO, is what this game desperately needs.

A man of impeccable taste.

No.

Well, yes.. but you always have to take into account the time you actually spend in the game, not just the nominal cost per day.

...I wouldn't say it's fascinating, but... it is.. interesting.

Didn't know there was anything left in WoT to ruin any more.

You say this on the forum for a game that considers 'detonation' an achievement...

What's it called, 'Peril on the High Seas in the Shallow Waters'?

... Never gonna give you up..

This game should have 'recoverable error' type of mechanics. By this I mean, it should allow you to engage and disengage at will which would turn the 'campy' meta into a 'dynamic' meta. Many people like having the islands in the game, I don't. If the justification is that they provide cover, hide movements, and can be made tactical use of... I'm still not buying it. All that should instead be achieved by use of smoke which already exists in the game. I'd change the map design by moving all the islands into 'Secondary zone', intended for spawning/deployment, retreat and repair. Then I'd have a 'combat zone' without any islands what so ever, with 'Objective Zones' (read 'Caps') placed in this expanse of wide open water.

What is smart and what isn't, depends on how you want to play the game. I belong to the 'Playing a Naval Game' lobby myself, so IMO the battles should be about engaging the enemy as a group (read Team or Flank), fighting the enemy as a group, gaining a tactical advantage over the enemy, inflicting greater losses on the enemy, winning the battle either through achieving Primary Objective and/or forcing the enemy to disengage and retreat, as much as the game mechanics allow for this. The problem is, as far as the current meta goes, they don't. Things were considerably better in this regard in older times...

Best Battle SC.

I don't actually know what is going on... but in my recent battles the sub does not get spotted at all as far as I can see.

... how.. how has this historically accurate piece of information eluded me for so long...

Given the dodgy gimmicky mechanics, there's no way to protect the CV's if they remain in formation... sadly.

Well... there's one submarine I kind of would like to see in the game. Comandante Cappellini would make an interesting addition to the game as an Italian..Japanese... .. I mean German in Japan...IJN submarine.

Tora Tora Tora !

But but... aren't we in the Age of Aquarius?