Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Xanta99

Poll: Nation limits on current and new operations

Limiting Ops to specific nations (hermes + new one in development)  

59 members have voted

  1. 1. Which of the following should be the way forward for Ops after Hermes and given what is now in delevopment?

    • The current limits on Hermes and new Op are just fine. I like my immersion as it is with no axis ships where they shouldn't be
      16
    • Add the Russians to allowed nations in these Ops are well, they were also allied
      1
    • How about adding an Op next for the Axis please, enough with the allied-only Ops
      13
    • Just open all ops to all nations. No one minds in any other Op that it's a mix, just like every other game mode
      25
    • Let's take this a step further and limit more existing Ops to nations that would be involved (e.g. Axis only in Ultimate Frontier)
      4

24 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[-NFG-]
[-NFG-]
Players
216 posts
7,605 battles

Hermes was already added as an Op with limits on nations usable (FR/UK/US cruiser/FR BB)  Now the Dev Blog suggests a new Op also limited to (T8) FR/UK/US cruisers only.   Are these limits a good idea?  Are we thrilled it's the same nations again?   Why are the Russians left out?  Does anyone prefer the immersion of not having a German ship attacking germans in an Op?  Or should they all just be open to all?  Or at least varied, not the same nations every time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
5,061 posts
8,562 battles

While I'm not against the idea of limiting ships that can participate in the Op, I'd like to see it more diverse than just "US, RN and MN" for the 2nd time in a row

 

Then again I do prefer the way how Ultimate Frontier is done - in theory your whole team should be only Japanese ships, but if you don't want that - your call to pick what you'll have. That little element of choice is nice to have :cap_yes:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,418 posts
11,300 battles

When I see "Axis" used as a WW2 side, I am quite amazed how well the propaganda works.

I would understand that on US or RU forums people use (quite intentional) simplification and think that the Second World War was fought between some bad "Axis" and the good ones, called "Allies" - but on European forum, really? :cap_cool:

 

So called "Axis" is defined as members of the Tripartite Pact, which was signed only in late September 1940 and formed until April-May 1941 - and the war started a whole year earlier, remember? Not only Poland and Norway, or Baltic States, but even Western Europe was conquered and also Battle of Britain won before the Axis was even created. Stalin and Hitler were belligerents until May-June 1941! They partitioned Poland (and generally Central/Eastern Europe) together, according to their protocol added to Ribbentrop-Molotov pact.

When Germans attacked in June 1941, there were still trains going from Russia with supplies intending to break the allied economic blockade of Germany. 

 

So far the current version of history keeps September 1939 as the start of the war, despite Russian attempts to move it either to the Chalchyn-Gol campaign, or to 1941 (also supported by the Yankees which don't bother to investigate small a few months difference between June and December :fish_palm:). So please don't tell me about "The Axis" in context of WW2 in general, ok? Because then it becomes complicated: you would have to put pre-1941 Soviet ships on the Axis side, as well as the mid-war French ships like Richelieu, Dunkerque, Bretagne and many others which actively fought against "Allied" forces. Stalin in fact started the formal negotiations about USSR joining the Axis in November 1940...  The history is not as simply black & white as current politicians would like us to think. 

 

36115488454_b0f4262246_b.jpg

Above: joint Soviet-German parade after their victory in 1939. Both forces reached predefined dividing line (set in August'39) - and where Germans had reached too far, they moved back and handed the area to the Soviets. 

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-NFG-]
[-NFG-]
Players
216 posts
7,605 battles

Quite aware of the history.  It nevertheless is the case that Italy, Germany and Japan were on one side and US/UK/Russia/China/Anzac on the other for the bulk of the conflict.  We know what the Soviets did to Poland, and revile it,  yet what happened after Barbarossa determined their ultimate "side" as much as such things can be defined in absolute terms, which - propoganda or not - I presume no Russian would tolerate much discussian of today. (Itself unfortunate).  Likewise the French can be considered Vichy or Free and those also had clearly defined allegiances, the ramifications of which were complex for them as a nation during and afterwards.  Questionable decisions, such as the fate of the French fleet were made at the time for reasons that will never be acceptable to 100% of people - yet made they were.  Italy's actions post 1943 (and the suffering they underwent as a result) nevertheless do not change the fact that their major participation in the war was allied to Germany.  In game terms I'm not against these concepts being included, but I don't think a developer from Belarus is likely to annouce an Op where German and Russian forces work together against Poland - or any other controversial action such as Mers el Kebir.  Do you really not understand that a potential Op where Germans/Italians/Japanese forces were working together has a basis in the allegiances of the time?  (even if Japan was too distant for that to have been possible).  I don't think there would be much, if any, issue from players with that setup.

 

Compared to one where you can have Nagato high-fiving an Atlanta while waving at a post war Indonesian DD?  (perfectly allowed in Ultimate frontier)

 

My personal opinion is that the early Ops with no restrictions were excellent, and the recent ones with restrictions are not.  Richelieu is ok to use in Hermes but Alabama is not?  I wouldn't mind if it was Amagi!  Let us play our ships!

 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PKTZS]
Weekend Tester
2,567 posts
18,223 battles

I think operations should be "country oriented" instead of Axis vs Allies. That is, if they want to keep an historical feel.

 

In naval warfare joint operations have traditionally been a failure. Communications are dealt differently by different navies, and that makes the required coordination very difficult to get. Axis navies never operated together as far as I know  (geography may have had some influence here :Smile_smile:), and early Allied attempts were a complete disaster (ABDA naval forces). It required a lot of time and training to get ships of different countries to work as a cohesive force (Commonwealth Navy being the only special case). Allies eventually made it, but multinational task forces in WW2 were the exception rather than the rule.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
3,940 posts
19,513 battles

I want an Op "detonate the Hood" where we play as KM ships vs 1 Hood, and the only way to sink it is by detonating it :cap_haloween:

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,199 posts
11,986 battles
9 hours ago, wilkatis_LV said:

While I'm not against the idea of limiting ships that can participate in the Op, I'd like to see it more diverse than just "US, RN and MN" for the 2nd time in a row

 

Then again I do prefer the way how Ultimate Frontier is done - in theory your whole team should be only Japanese ships, but if you don't want that - your call to pick what you'll have. That little element of choice is nice to have :cap_yes:

Allow all nations to play, give mission/repeatable challenge for "historical" nations/ships. Here, problem solved

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WCWVE]
Players
1,050 posts
16,800 battles
4 hours ago, Xanta99 said:

Quite aware of the history.  It nevertheless is the case that Italy, Germany and Japan were on one side and US/UK/Russia/China/Anzac on the other for the bulk of the conflict. 

You have missed out quite a few participants 

Finland, Romania, Hungary, Manchoukou for the Axis plus various other groups such as Cossacks and Croats 

Brazil, Canada, South Africa for the allies 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,431 posts
17,152 battles
11 minutes ago, pzkpfwv1d said:

You have missed out quite a few participants 

Finland, Romania, Hungary, Manchoukou for the Axis plus various other groups such as Cossacks and Croats 

Brazil, Canada, South Africa for the allies 

...and according to "The History Channel", Aliens also took part. :Smile_hiding:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-NFG-]
[-NFG-]
Players
216 posts
7,605 battles
27 minutes ago, pzkpfwv1d said:

You have missed out quite a few participants 

Finland, Romania, Hungary, Manchoukou for the Axis plus various other groups such as Cossacks and Croats 

Brazil, Canada, South Africa for the allies 

I wasn't aiming to produce a definitive list since none of this was the point of this thread until the commonly used and understood word Axis triggered some bloke.  But you missed India in your list if we're keeping score.  Luckily Nelson mentioned the Aliens, because no comprehensive off topic list would be complete without their contribution.  Sharks were also a fairly major combatant, though they struggled to choose a side.  

 

Now then, back to the question at hand.  Thoughts about Ops, anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,418 posts
11,300 battles
14 hours ago, Xanta99 said:

Quite aware of the history.  It nevertheless is the case that Italy, Germany and Japan were on one side and US/UK/Russia/China/Anzac on the other for the bulk of the conflict. 

yeah, "bulk", and who cares about "not bulk". 

Quote

We know what the Soviets did to Poland, and revile it,  yet what happened after Barbarossa determined their ultimate "side" as much as such things can be defined in absolute terms,

Quite interesting what you choose to ignore. Of course that when more big countries actively entered the war it was larger "in absolute terms". Yet you can't simplify that WW2 was fought vs "Axis" because this Axis simply did not exist during the first year of the war. Hard to remember for Yanks (which were neutral) and even harder for Russians (which supported Hitler). 

Quote

which - propoganda or not - I presume no Russian would tolerate much discussian of today. (Itself unfortunate). 

Of course. Yet facts are facts, and there is no discussion about facts. So either we stick to facts or to the current national versions of history. 

Quote

Likewise the French can be considered Vichy or Free and those also had clearly defined allegiances, the ramifications of which were complex for them as a nation during and afterwards.  Questionable decisions, such as the fate of the French fleet were made at the time for reasons that will never be acceptable to 100% of people - yet made they were. 

Exactly. You can't put France as "totally Allied" state, because who then fought bloody campaigns in Africa? Allies vs Allies? :cap_old:

Quote

Italy's actions post 1943 (and the suffering they underwent as a result) nevertheless do not change the fact that their major participation in the war was allied to Germany. 

Sure. They just surrendered, and there was no major war effort on the "Allied" side. A bit different situation from the French, don't you think?

Quote

In game terms I'm not against these concepts being included, but I don't think a developer from Belarus is likely to annouce an Op where German and Russian forces work together against Poland - or any other controversial action such as Mers el Kebir. 

What was "controversial" in Mers-el-Kebir battle? French were under German control, yet they didn't eliminate threat which their powerful fleet presented to the Allies. This had to be solved, Germans really wanted those ships, as was later shown in Toulon.

Quote

Do you really not understand that a potential Op where Germans/Italians/Japanese forces were working together has a basis in the allegiances of the time?  (even if Japan was too distant for that to have been possible).

It wasn't 2-sided conflict. Japan had issues with Soviets, but Soviets collaborated with Germans because wanted their "old" 18th century buffer zone in Baltic States and Eastern Poland.  But Germans allied with Finland and Balkan states, which was not acceptable by USSR. Western Europe was equally opposed to Nazi Germany as to Communist Soviets - that's why they didn't declare war on Soviets in 1939, because could not antagonize both enemies at once in exchange for supporting already-lost Poland. That doesn't change the fact that Soviets actively entered the war on the German side (unless we of course do not start rewriting the history and count the invasion of Poland as 'a local conflict', not part of the World War...) 

Quote

 I don't think there would be much, if any, issue from players with that setup.

All I am talking about here is the small word: "Axis", which is complete nonsense when describing WW2 "side". 

Quote

 

Compared to one where you can have Nagato high-fiving an Atlanta while waving at a post war Indonesian DD?  (perfectly allowed in Ultimate frontier)

Sure, but nobody calls this "Axis" and WG obvious interest in including post-war designs into WW1-WW2 game is quite another, separate issue. 

 

Quote

 

My personal opinion is that the early Ops with no restrictions were excellent, and the recent ones with restrictions are not.  Richelieu is ok to use in Hermes but Alabama is not?  I wouldn't mind if it was Amagi!  Let us play our ships!

I would like to see historical battles in Ops, we have enough ships for that (WG would like that, because people would grind lines they otherwise would not ;) ). 

Anyway, it doesn't exclude "multinational" scenarios, where you can have Sov-Soyuz, Bismarck, Alabama, Richelieu and Nagato fighting each other in any alliance.

Or even 1950's Kutuzov fighting ~25 years older Atago. :cap_popcorn:

14 hours ago, JapLance said:

I think operations should be "country oriented" instead of Axis vs Allies. That is, if they want to keep an historical feel.

+1

Quote

 

In naval warfare joint operations have traditionally been a failure. Communications are dealt differently by different navies, and that makes the required coordination very difficult to get. Axis navies never operated together as far as I know  (geography may have had some influence here :Smile_smile:), and early Allied attempts were a complete disaster (ABDA naval forces). It required a lot of time and training to get ships of different countries to work as a cohesive force (Commonwealth Navy being the only special case). Allies eventually made it, but multinational task forces in WW2 were the exception rather than the rule.

Just like in random WoWs games ;)

9 hours ago, pzkpfwv1d said:

You have missed out quite a few participants 

Finland, Romania, Hungary, Manchoukou for the Axis plus various other groups such as Cossacks and Croats 

Brazil, Canada, South Africa for the allies 

Oh, also at the end of the war the Allied side was quite swarmed by those "neutral-so-far". On the other side, Polish army was not even present on the Victory Parade. Some countries won, some wanted to be on the winning side, some lost. Anyway, I'm not whining about history here, but only about the little "Axis" nonsense.

8 hours ago, Xanta99 said:

I wasn't aiming to produce a definitive list since none of this was the point of this thread until the commonly used and understood word Axis triggered some bloke. 

Besides calling me "some bloke" do you have any arguments for naming WW2 an "Axis" war? Sure, Soviets didn't use their fleet much when allied with Germany, but still the World War is not the same as their Great Patriotic War, and also we are not living in the US which commonly think that before 1941 it was just "war in Europe", not WW. :cap_old:

 

Quote

But you missed India in your list if we're keeping score.  Luckily Nelson mentioned the Aliens, because no comprehensive off topic list would be complete without their contribution.  Sharks were also a fairly major combatant, though they struggled to choose a side.  

Aliens had heavy presence. Especially those from Planet Nazi or Planet Vichy, although they suddenly disappeared in 1945, returning innocent & peaceful German or French civilians back to Earth... 

Quote

 

Now then, back to the question at hand.  Thoughts about Ops, anyone?

Well, there were some voices: either historically accurate scenarios with limited nations allowed, or total fiction as in the arcade game. 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
5,131 posts
11,146 battles
12 minutes ago, EdiJo said:

What was "controversial" in Mers-el-Kebir battle? French were under German control, yet they didn't eliminate threat which their powerful fleet presented to the Allies. This had to be solved, Germans really wanted those ships, as was later shown in Toulon.

 

Shooting at neutral ships in a neutral harbor under the guise of "leave with us this instant and/or give us your ships, or we're shooting" might have something to do with it.
 

:Smile_sceptic:

 

But hey, apparently burning down the entire fleet at Copenhaguen because the Danes didn't oblige the RN that very same"give us your ships" deal doesn't register as so much as controversial, so I'm just jumping to the conclusion that when it comes down to the RN, they could literally get away with murder and people would still praise and defend them for doing it.

 

 

[queue 27 British forum goers inundating my notifications about how I'm totally wrong and shooting at neutral ships makes you a white as snow hero as long as the intentions are good]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,418 posts
11,300 battles
31 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

 

Shooting at neutral ships in a neutral harbor under the guise of "leave with us this instant and/or give us your ships, or we're shooting" might have something to do with it.
 

:Smile_sceptic:

 

How can anyone call France "neutral" when in fact it was German-controlled puppet state self-guarded (saving on occupational forces) & working for Nazi war effort? Keeping their colonies not accessible to the Allies, too.

Considering French forces quite strongly fighting Allies during Torch it doesn't seem that improbable that they would pose a threat to already very hard situation in the Mediterranean.

Sorry, French refused to scuttle (or even relocate...) the ships, and Brits simply could not leave them operational. Gensoul got an ultimatum and had clear harmless way out of this situation.

Still, ways of executing the operation are of course debatable... 

 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,456 posts
9,251 battles

I don't mind nation restriction for immersion, as long as it is kept reasonable. The greatest issue I had with Hermes is that there were missions attached to it and I had to grind to Algerie to get there (I hate La Gal). If it's your typical op with only daily missions, it should be fine.

 

Also, you know what's the really awesome part about Hermes' limitations? Noone can bring their T7 DDs. You know how fun it is in Operations like Killer Whale or Aegis when someone brings their Hatsuharu or Fubuki?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BABBY]
Beta Tester
1,591 posts

Nation limited ops are nice narratively but as far as the actual game goes just bad because of the tier restriction also being in place. I was against the tier spread restriction for ops in the first place (used to be able to bring T5s into T6 ops), and this is just piling more of what I don't want to see on top of that. Lower variety of elegible ships just cuts out more and more players who would othewise join in but don't want to grind and have a specific ships just to use for certain operations. Per example I wouldn't mind having a Normandie or Richeleiu, but not really interested in Lyon, so no Hermes for me unless I want to swap an unretrained captain over or have a 5-point guy whose earned XP is 'wasted' on him only existing for a specific task.

 

If we could bring in ships of limited nations but wider tier variety I'd be fine with it. If we wan't immersion from ops, remember that the old Kuma served as a contemporary of Mogami. It'd be nice to see pairings across tiers like this in battles outside of bots using them. This would need slots designated specifically for ships of certain tiers so you'll end up with a set number of players in lower tier ships regardless of who enters the queue with what, so people don't feel disadvantaged by having a tier 4 or 5 with them since there's no way they'd have a team of all 6s anyway. Of course however as historical battles in WOT showed, which indeed tried to use a system like this, everyone always wants to be in the strongest vehicle on their team, so the lesson there is that basically nobody gives a crap about immersion and we should just lift nation restrictions on all ops.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
Players
7,019 posts

Ops IMO should be sort of an aproximation of a naval operation or single battle from real historical standpoint (or at least as close as it is feasable in the game) we have 4 game mods for shootout (coop, Random, ranked and cw) and they are enough, so I for one vote for nation restriction for max immersion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,456 posts
9,251 battles
19 hours ago, StringWitch said:

Nation limited ops are nice narratively but as far as the actual game goes just bad because of the tier restriction also being in place. I was against the tier spread restriction for ops in the first place (used to be able to bring T5s into T6 ops), and this is just piling more of what I don't want to see on top of that. Lower variety of elegible ships just cuts out more and more players who would othewise join in but don't want to grind and have a specific ships just to use for certain operations. Per example I wouldn't mind having a Normandie or Richeleiu, but not really interested in Lyon, so no Hermes for me unless I want to swap an unretrained captain over or have a 5-point guy whose earned XP is 'wasted' on him only existing for a specific task.

 

If we could bring in ships of limited nations but wider tier variety I'd be fine with it. If we wan't immersion from ops, remember that the old Kuma served as a contemporary of Mogami. It'd be nice to see pairings across tiers like this in battles outside of bots using them. This would need slots designated specifically for ships of certain tiers so you'll end up with a set number of players in lower tier ships regardless of who enters the queue with what, so people don't feel disadvantaged by having a tier 4 or 5 with them since there's no way they'd have a team of all 6s anyway. Of course however as historical battles in WOT showed, which indeed tried to use a system like this, everyone always wants to be in the strongest vehicle on their team, so the lesson there is that basically nobody gives a crap about immersion and we should just lift nation restrictions on all ops.

I'd say, two tier spread at most. If you need a Kuma alongside Mogami, get in some bot Kuma. But the performance differences between Kuma and Mogami make it a bit hard to throw in bots that both ships will find challenging while neither will get outright slaughtered. For example a bot Dallas would be not too hard to deal with for a Mogami, but that Kuma can just hope it can hit with torps, because no way it is going to gun that one down. And I'm skeptical about how well torpedoes work against these bots, especially after AI upgrades.

 

I do agree though that softening the tier requirement would help a great deal, instead of making operations that get ever more restricted in what you can bring. For example, for the upcoming operation, I'll likely will have to buy a Charles Martel, because it's the only allied T8 cruiser I actually have researched. I never bought it, because I wasn't too interested in the line. I even got Algerie only because it was the quickest way to get into Hermes. I'm at this point grinding French cruisers because I need ships that can be used for these operations (and likely missions that require you play them), not because I find them terribly interesting. Hermes was already restricted to a grand total of 10 ships (Algerie, Fiji, Belfast, Pensacola, Atlanta, Flint, Indianapolis, Lyon, Richelieu, Gascogne), half of which were premiums, most of which were not obtainable at the time. The new operation will be restricted to 4 ships. It was reasonable to assume people can obtain any T6 ship in due time to play operations that had no special missions associated with them, but can we really assume everyone plays at least one allied cruiser line up to T8? At this rate I don't even want to know what they'll have in store for the Soviet BB release, but I guess I should get that Chapayev...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,168 posts
9,352 battles
On 5/29/2018 at 3:02 AM, EdiJo said:

When I see "Axis" used as a WW2 side, I am quite amazed how well the propaganda works.

 

shall i tell you about "axis of evil" term used nowadays?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
2,972 posts
28,554 battles

I have nothing about ships restriction, by nation or by tier, or by class, if they were tied with specific nation/class line release. Only two operations that have nation restriction are those added after release of French BBs, Operation Hermes, and the one that will added with US CL release, Operation Cherry Blossom (or whatever). I guess that when new British, Italian or German lines be added that there will be followed by appropriate national operation. Maybe WG bring back Dunkirk when they release RN DDs. All other operations that were not connected to specific line release or event should be open to all. I don't see why is this such a problem.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,456 posts
9,251 battles
23 minutes ago, fumtu said:

I have nothing about ships restriction, by nation or by tier, or by class, if they were tied with specific nation/class line release. Only two operations that have nation restriction are those added after release of French BBs, Operation Hermes, and the one that will added with US CL release, Operation Cherry Blossom (or whatever). I guess that when new British, Italian or German lines be added that there will be followed by appropriate national operation. Maybe WG bring back Dunkirk when they release RN DDs. All other operations that were not connected to specific line release or event should be open to all. I don't see why is this such a problem.  

Because of the fun there is in grinding a line to get a ship solely so you can get time-limited missions done connected to these operations? If you never grinded a line past T3 and now can go and try to go to T7 or T8, just because of a mission, it kind of sucks. And it isn't exactly that hard to widen the criteria and for example approve allied BBs or DDs (if they'd include things that DDs actually are good for and not just where their dpm disadvantage compared to cruisers shows), given it increases the number of eligible ships from a mere 10 for Hermes by 2 if DDs are allowed, 5 if allied T7 BBs are allowed, another 3 if T8 BBs are also allowed, while for Cherry Blossom the number would increase from 4 by 2 with DDs added and by 5 with BBs added. If tier restrictions were widened to include T7 for Cherry Blossom, this would increase even further.

 

And would it be doable gameplay-wise? Well, early operations had T5/6 restrictions. Hermes has T7 cruisers alongside T8 BBs. It's not that hard to make an operation that could be doable in any of the allied T7 cruisers too, given the increase in difficulty isn't that much. T7 allied premiums even bring the useful radar, when the whole thing is a night battle with likely vision impairment. Adding DDs only makes it a bit hard if they don't add something useful for DDs to do.

Would it break immersion? Immersion-wise, even a Perth has more of a place in Cherry Blossom than a Charles Martel. Ships like the New Orleans-class, the Atlanta-class and such were quite active in the night actions of the Pacific and a good few got sunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRQ]
Players
2,930 posts
7,510 battles

Short answer, tier restriction + nation restriction = very few available ships to play, several of which are premium. Lots of players don't have more than one or two of those, and they may not be something they want to play in operations anyway.

 

With those restrictions, there should maybe be an option to lease ships, like for clan battles.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
2,972 posts
28,554 battles
3 minutes ago, Riselotte said:

Because of the fun there is in grinding a line to get a ship solely so you can get time-limited missions done connected to these operations? If you never grinded a line past T3 and now can go and try to go to T7 or T8, just because of a mission, it kind of sucks. And it isn't exactly that hard to widen the criteria and for example approve allied BBs or DDs (if they'd include things that DDs actually are good for and not just where their dpm disadvantage compared to cruisers shows), given it increases the number of eligible ships from a mere 10 for Hermes by 2 if DDs are allowed, 5 if allied T7 BBs are allowed, another 3 if T8 BBs are also allowed, while for Cherry Blossom the number would increase from 4 by 2 with DDs added and by 5 with BBs added. If tier restrictions were widened to include T7 for Cherry Blossom, this would increase even further.

 

And would it be doable gameplay-wise? Well, early operations had T5/6 restrictions. Hermes has T7 cruisers alongside T8 BBs. It's not that hard to make an operation that could be doable in any of the allied T7 cruisers too, given the increase in difficulty isn't that much. T7 allied premiums even bring the useful radar, when the whole thing is a night battle with likely vision impairment. Adding DDs only makes it a bit hard if they don't add something useful for DDs to do.

 

WG probably want to diversify scenarios and to create some that will be theme based, like Hermes or Cherry Blossom. This should motivate players to try other classes and nations too not just stick with one and demand that everything should be available to him. I'm playing almost exclusively Cruisers and Destroyers. Still I wouldn't mind if WG create scenario based on the Battle of Jutland where only BBs should be allowed or the Battle of Midway where players would be encouraged to use CVs. Then maybe I would consider playing BBs or CVs more. I don't see why is this such a big deal.

 

3 minutes ago, Riselotte said:

Would it break immersion? Immersion-wise, even a Perth has more of a place in Cherry Blossom than a Charles Martel. Ships like the New Orleans-class, the Atlanta-class and such were quite active in the night actions of the Pacific and a good few got sunk.

 

Well if/when Commonwealth get T8 Cruiser I guess it should be included too. WG decided for their own reasons to use only T8 allies ships. In RL event on which scenario was based only 4 Cleveland class cruiser and 8 Fletcher class DD took part on the US side. NO class cruises did took part in many night battles in the Solomons but I don't think this matter much for this scenario. BTW Atlanta class cruisers, USS Atlanta and USS Juneau took part in only one night action in the Solomons, the First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal were both were lost. After that all other cruisers of the Atlanta class were used only in AA escort role as they were considered to vulnerable for close combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,456 posts
9,251 battles
43 minutes ago, fumtu said:

 

WG probably want to diversify scenarios and to create some that will be theme based, like Hermes or Cherry Blossom. This should motivate players to try other classes and nations too not just stick with one and demand that everything should be available to him. I'm playing almost exclusively Cruisers and Destroyers. Still I wouldn't mind if WG create scenario based on the Battle of Jutland where only BBs should be allowed or the Battle of Midway where players would be encouraged to use CVs. Then maybe I would consider playing BBs or CVs more. I don't see why is this such a big deal.

It's not that I don't play cruisers. It's that I play the three cruiser lines that are not applicable here and French, because it was required for Hermes. It's one thing asking people to branch out. It's another to make narrow requirements that kind of require you to grind every line, because god knows what ship and tier they want next for operations. Not to mention, until a short while ago, I would have had to keep Algerie upon moving on to Charles Martel, if I wanted to play Hermes again, which only is now not the case, because bought an Atlanta. But if operations get overly restrictive, it means either one has to own half the ships in the game at some point to play them all, or the amount of people actually playing operations will drop, because they just can't be bothered. Neither can be a reasonable objective.

50 minutes ago, fumtu said:

Well if/when Commonwealth get T8 Cruiser I guess it should be included too. WG decided for their own reasons to use only T8 allies ships. In RL event on which scenario was based only 4 Cleveland class cruiser and 8 Fletcher class DD took part on the US side. NO class cruises did took part in many night battles in the Solomons but I don't think this matter much for this scenario. BTW Atlanta class cruisers, USS Atlanta and USS Juneau took part in only one night action in the Solomons, the First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal were both were lost. After that all other cruisers of the Atlanta class were used only in AA escort role as they were considered to vulnerable for close combat.

So? Cherry Blossom is not any one event, it's a generalised night battle in the Pacific. And for all that the New Orleans-class and the Atlanta-class are way more relevant than Charles Martel, which never actually made it off the drawing board. WG might have "their own reasons" to restrict it to T8 allied cruisers, but neither is that much of an argument nor does it mean people can't call this a tendency towards overly restrictive requirements that could be loosened to make people more willing to still put up with operations and not make this some niche game mode that eventually people don't care about, because half the time they don't own an applicable ship or they don't want to play it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,058 posts
12,082 battles

I do like ops themed like Hermes, but frankly I'd prefer to have sufficient ops for all relevant ships first.

New ops's don't come often, kidan a waste to have to wait for like 2 months or so just to find out I got only 2 ships or so I can enter them with.

 

I do want to specify that I do like the idea of operations for certain classes, maybe something with destroyers or an operation where BBs can shine? Or carriers?

Some operation with (just to name something out of the ordinary) 3 human carriers having to protect some convoy or something? Or tier 6 carriers (escort carriers) along with some higher tier gunned escort ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×