[X-10] ___V_E_N_O_M___ Players 2,129 posts 14,292 battles Report post #1 Posted September 17, 2018 Its boring to always have allied and axis ships on the same side in MM! I would prefer to see much more historically accurate grouping of ships on either side. French ships could have a FNFL or an Occupied France custom flag to designate which side they are playing on. Italy, Japan, Germany & Occupied France vs. UK, USA, Russia, FNFL & minor allies. Technically this would be much more interesting from a gameplay perspective aswell since the axis side wont have access to things like radar. What do you think? 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[ONE2] RAHJAILARI Players 3,160 posts 31,670 battles Report post #2 Posted September 17, 2018 Yeah, guaranteed all radar ships on one side, none on the other for example.... Not necessarily against it but not convinced either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[HOO] Fat_Maniac [HOO] Players 2,337 posts 4,238 battles Report post #3 Posted September 17, 2018 10 minutes ago, HMS_Argosax said: Its boring to always have allied and axis ships on the same side in MM! I would prefer to see much more historically accurate grouping of ships on either side. French ships could have a FNFL or an Occupied France custom flag to designate which side they are playing on. Italy, Japan, Germany & Occupied France vs. UK, USA, Russia, FNFL & minor allies. Technically this would be much more interesting from a gameplay perspective aswell since the axis side wont have access to things like radar. What do you think? Easy. join a clan. We have done Axis vs Allies. It's a lot of fun, works best if you all stick to the same tier. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[SCRUB] ClappingLollies Players 1,953 posts Report post #4 Posted September 17, 2018 6 minutes ago, RAHJAILARI said: Yeah, guaranteed all radar ships on one side, none on the other for example.... Not necessarily against it but not convinced either. It is a bit unbalanced, but not by much. @Flambass did some events a while ago with axis vs allies. It was really fun so im in! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[OYO] FooFaFie Players 837 posts Report post #5 Posted September 17, 2018 Yes you can. But than we need the Italians very quick. It also why I suggest to split the minor European countries in Allies/Axis/Neutral. Austria/Hungary is hardly an allies. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[HALON] Amon_ITA Players 708 posts 13,072 battles Report post #6 Posted September 17, 2018 32 minutes ago, HMS_Argosax said: What do you think? In principle it's a great idea. It feels wrong to spawn near a Bismarck when you're in a Hood, you know :) I've read they've been organized in the past. Personally i feel that the ships are not balanced to work in an Axis / Allies fashion, but i could be wrong, of course. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[X-10] ___V_E_N_O_M___ Players 2,129 posts 14,292 battles Report post #7 Posted September 17, 2018 7 minutes ago, Amon_ITA said: In principle it's a great idea. It feels wrong to spawn near a Bismarck when you're in a Hood, you know :) I've read they've been organized in the past. Personally i feel that the ships are not balanced to work in an Axis / Allies fashion, but i could be wrong, of course. Well its how WW2 played out, each side had strengths and weaknesses. Just because no radar dont mean no play! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[HALON] Amon_ITA Players 708 posts 13,072 battles Report post #8 Posted September 17, 2018 24 minutes ago, HMS_Argosax said: Well its how WW2 played out, each side had strengths and weaknesses. Just because no radar dont mean no play! I was thinking about radar too. I think that having that handicap is a little too much. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[X-10] ___V_E_N_O_M___ Players 2,129 posts 14,292 battles Report post #9 Posted September 17, 2018 6 minutes ago, Amon_ITA said: I was thinking about radar too. I think that having that handicap is a little too much. Pan Asian Destroyers can mount Radar, China was under Japanese Occupation during WW2. Could have Chung Mu or Yueyang DDs with Radar slapped on. Problem solved. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[GEUS] TeaAndTorps Players 820 posts 2,680 battles Report post #10 Posted September 17, 2018 I'm not entirely against it, as long (obviously) as it's a separate game mode from randoms. I don't think that having all the radar on one side, guaranteed, makes for interesting gameplay – quite the opposite. I'm personally not that interested in such a mode, but it seems like it would be nice for those who would be. 10 minutes ago, HMS_Argosax said: Well its how WW2 played out, each side had strengths and weaknesses. Just because no radar dont mean no play! It's possible that I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here, in which case I apologise, but I feel obliged to point out that the German and Japanese navies did both have radar during WW2, even if this isn't reflected in the distribution of radar consumables in game. Dividing lower tiers on WW2 lines would in some cases be anachronistic – Italy and (to a more limited extent) Japan both fought with the Allies in WW1 (probably there are other less obvious examples too, which would occur to me if I thought about it for longer). Of course, Italy fought on both sides at different points during WW2, although one could resolve that by approaching it in the same way as you suggest for France. 35 minutes ago, FooFaFie said: It also why I suggest to split the minor European countries in Allies/Axis/Neutral. Austria/Hungary is hardly an allies. I fear this suggestion might suffer from the same drawback. E.g. where does one place the Netherlands? Neutral during WW1, Allied during WW2 but under German occupation for most of it. Altogether, I think Europe between 1914 and 1949 (the year which marked the decisive shift from WW2 geopolitics to the Cold War) was such a tumultuous place with such socio-political upheavals that this classification is fraught with many fundamentally political questions, which WG tend to studiously avoid. (Of course, that's what makes inter-war Europe so fascinating for historians, but that's a different matter ). I think it would make more sense for a Pan-European teach tree with several branches per class to be divided according to playstyle, rather than WW2 allegience. What to dow ith them in a theoretical Axis vs Allies/Central Powers vs Triple Entente mode, I don't know. But training rooms would remain available for players do figure it out for themselves Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[NAN0] HaachamaShipping Players 8,474 posts 10,052 battles Report post #11 Posted September 17, 2018 It's often enough in operations. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[X-10] ___V_E_N_O_M___ Players 2,129 posts 14,292 battles Report post #12 Posted September 17, 2018 1 minute ago, Riselotte said: It's often enough in operations. I wanna human not bot mate Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[GEUS] TeaAndTorps Players 820 posts 2,680 battles Report post #13 Posted September 17, 2018 43 minutes ago, HMS_Argosax said: Pan Asian Destroyers can mount Radar, China was under Japanese Occupation during WW2. Could have Chung Mu or Yueyang DDs with Radar slapped on. Problem solved. Well, I mean, they're short-range and short-duration radars, so not really problem solved. Also, Chung Mu was a South Korean destroyer (named after this dude).* I think any suggestion that it should fight alongside the Imperial Japanese Navy is likely to result in many highly pd-off Koreans! *Fun fact: The final form you have to perform to get a first-Dan black belt in ITF Taekwondo is also named after him, and features a very satisfying flying kick. EDIT, for the sake of completeness: It would also be anachronistic as the T8-10 PA DDs were tranferred to those navies in the 1950s, well after the end of the Japanese occupation. And having them fight alongside the IJN is, I imagine, as unlikely to go down well in China as it is in South Korea. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EdiJo Players 1,419 posts 11,712 battles Report post #14 Posted September 17, 2018 1 hour ago, HMS_Argosax said: Its boring to always have allied and axis ships on the same side in MM! I would prefer to see much more historically accurate grouping of ships on either side. French ships could have a FNFL or an Occupied France custom flag to designate which side they are playing on. Italy, Japan, Germany & Occupied France vs. UK, USA, Russia, FNFL & minor allies. Technically this would be much more interesting from a gameplay perspective aswell since the axis side wont have access to things like radar. What do you think? Bad idea looking at game balance, and bad idea historically - WoWS contains ships from many wars with same states on different sides, and even WWII started before late 1940/41 where the "Axis" term only started to have any sense. BTW, both German & IJN ships had radar. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[NIKE] Xevious_Red Beta Tester 3,412 posts 7,888 battles Report post #15 Posted September 17, 2018 In addition to all the radar being on the allies side, you also have the best smoke (US DD), the best AA (US Ca/CL, RN CL, US BB), the cruisers that can produce smoke, and the AP bombs that are great against German BB. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Panocek Players 13,176 posts 13,617 battles Report post #16 Posted September 17, 2018 WG tried to do "historical battles" back in the day in World of Tanks. Lets say "fail" doesn't quite wrap up how it worked out 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[H_FAN] Gnirf Players 3,293 posts 67,377 battles Report post #17 Posted September 17, 2018 In scenarios like the Hermes and Cherry it is fine - then you balance the bots by numbers en masse. Do not forget that WW1 had a complete other set up with Italy and Japan in the Entente. You know that Japan build destroyers for France f.e.. 12 of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabe-class_destroyer Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[NIKE] Xevious_Red Beta Tester 3,412 posts 7,888 battles Report post #18 Posted September 17, 2018 16 minutes ago, Panocek said: WG tried to do "historical battles" back in the day in World of Tanks. Lets say "fail" doesn't quite wrap up how it worked out Yeah both the historical battles and nation battles didn't work, but they were destined for failure regardless. Nation battles because they were single tier and were basically filled with 1 type of tank, making the result entirely dependent on which nation and map you got. Tier 6 RU vs UK on city map? Steam roll of KV1S exploding poor churchill VII's. Tier 6 RU vs US on open map? Blind KV1S's bumble around while 15 hellcats shoot them. The historical battles failed because of basic human nature. Did You want to be the top tier (limited places) IS or the two tiers lower cannon fodder T-34 that was basically there to get killed by enemy tiger? Yeah, entirely predictably there were hundreds of people queuing for IS/Tiger and almost no one that wanted to be T-34/Pz3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Panocek Players 13,176 posts 13,617 battles Report post #19 Posted September 17, 2018 5 minutes ago, Xevious_Red said: Yeah both the historical battles and nation battles didn't work, but they were destined for failure regardless. Nation battles because they were single tier and were basically filled with 1 type of tank, making the result entirely dependent on which nation and map you got. Tier 6 RU vs UK on city map? Steam roll of KV1S exploding poor churchill VII's. Tier 6 RU vs US on open map? Blind KV1S's bumble around while 15 hellcats shoot them. The historical battles failed because of basic human nature. Did You want to be the top tier (limited places) IS or the two tiers lower cannon fodder T-34 that was basically there to get killed by enemy tiger? Yeah, entirely predictably there were hundreds of people queuing for IS/Tiger and almost no one that wanted to be T-34/Pz3 These would be fixable by giving economy boosts to weaker tanks and hard capping top tier/ most desirable tanks and it wouldn't be as bad. Or go with "MOBA" style, as in players play with their "big toys" be it tanks or boats, while AI plays with lowtier chaff. It would work better in tanks though, as even Umikaze can cause considerable emotional event with repeated flooding. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[NIKE] Xevious_Red Beta Tester 3,412 posts 7,888 battles Report post #20 Posted September 17, 2018 3 minutes ago, Panocek said: These would be fixable by giving economy boosts to weaker tanks and hard capping top tier/ most desirable tanks and it wouldn't be as bad. Or go with "MOBA" style, as in players play with their "big toys" be it tanks or boats, while AI plays with lowtier chaff. It would work better in tanks though, as even Umikaze can cause considerable emotional event with repeated flooding. It could also work as a low tier event (since we don't actually have any of those) because at tier 4 there isn't radar/decent AA anyway Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jss78 Players 1,292 posts 12,866 battles Report post #21 Posted September 17, 2018 This was done recently on Warplanes. It was a complete disaster. It'd be even worse here because of the things done for national flavour across entire ship lines.... like Axis having on radar at all. It MIGHT be fun to have a WW1 era only event. So something like Tier 4. I'm not sure there'd be crippling balance problems. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[PKTZS] JapLance Weekend Tester 2,567 posts 18,265 battles Report post #22 Posted September 17, 2018 42 minutes ago, Panocek said: WG tried to do KILL "historical battles" back in the day in World of Tanks Fixed it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[GEUS] TeaAndTorps Players 820 posts 2,680 battles Report post #23 Posted September 17, 2018 6 minutes ago, jss78 said: It MIGHT be fun to have a WW1 era only event. So something like Tier 4. I'm not sure there'd be crippling balance problems. Ofc, for WW1, with the nations we currently have implemented, that's basically 'everyone pile on Germany'. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[NIKE] Xevious_Red Beta Tester 3,412 posts 7,888 battles Report post #24 Posted September 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, 10ThousandThings said: Ofc, for WW1, with the nations we currently have implemented, that's basically 'everyone pile on Germany'. My Konig Albert is ready. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[2DSF] Arakus Beta Tester 1,541 posts 7,511 battles Report post #25 Posted September 17, 2018 3 hours ago, HMS_Argosax said: Its boring to always have allied and axis ships on the same side in MM! I would prefer to see much more historically accurate grouping of ships on either side. French ships could have a FNFL or an Occupied France custom flag to designate which side they are playing on. Italy, Japan, Germany & Occupied France vs. UK, USA, Russia, FNFL & minor allies. Technically this would be much more interesting from a gameplay perspective aswell since the axis side wont have access to things like radar. What do you think? How about a simple, short answer? NO Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
