WOWs biggest flaw, solutions?

[asukamaru]

The lack of incentive to play at higher tier. Let me explain.

What is the difference in terms of gameplay between lower tier and higher tiers? Is there anything new to play with? Is it more fun?

 

DD: Low tiers are fast and furious, enemy ship firepower (especially CA) is mostly not enough to oneshot you all the time or be as big a threat as in higher tiers. Tier 6+ its the contrary,IJN especially suffer from an anemic "stealthy" gameplay that makes you useful for your team once every 130 seconds.  All others ships can now oneshot you and there are more ways to defeat stealth (scout planes for example). The worst being Shimakaze with 220 second reload for her torps, enjoy being afk while reloading. Why going on higher tiers when i can have the same/more experience/fun on low tiers?

 

CA: Tier 6 onward ships are the same gameplay, turrets lots of it, improved range, with the occasional torpedo. Here again no reason to go further. Ships feels the same, with some cosmetic changes which do not improve/change the gameplay.

 

BB: Well... Starting at tier 5 you got it all. What's the difference between an Amagi and a Kongo? More guns, more HP... Yup... Still doing the same things around the same areas of the maps. Kongou having the advantage of encountering low tiers she can chew on, why playing higher tiers? Whats the incentive? 

 

In world of tank, due to it being land, the maps can be played differently depending on which tier you are, elevation here is the key. You do not read the map the same way at tier 5 and at tier 10. Which makes the gameplay very different, and by so create incentives to play higher tiers.

WOWs can't have elevation on its map for obvious reasons. Is the issue with the map? Why making the ice map a high tier only map? it favors so much close quarter except in the middle. As for the others map the choice usually resides between left and right at the beginning of the battle, and for slow ships its a commitment you can't change.

 

The problems resides mainly in the fact that ships are not tanks (mister obvious), the differences between a tier 5 and a tier 10 here are not that great, at least not as much as between a T34 and a T62a, a Stug and a Jadjtiger, here the big historical change was the introduction of carriers and BB disappearing because of it. Obviously we can't have that here.

 

Could weather? Different kind of missions (more ship orientated), night battle be used as an incentive to play higher tiers? Could the use of new skills be implemented at higher tiers? Or is it mainly due to the nature of the game, Ship VS Ship during this timeline, and we must choose to play high tier just on a whim?

Could it be the reason why the game seems to bleed of testers very fast?

 

Gameplay is the key of a successful game, i don't see any more gameplay, any improvement at higher tier right now, and i do believe it might prove a fatal flaw.

[dan_can]

 The problems resides mainly in the fact that ships are not tanks (mister obvious), the differences between a tier 5 and a tier 10 here are not that great, at least not as much as between a T34 and a T62a, a Stug and a Jadjtiger, here the big historical change was the introduction of carriers and BB disappearing because of it. Obviously we can't have that here.

 

I rather see this a pro, b/c you can make a difference despite being a low tier ship, as every ship can damage another and you are not completly useless.

 

 Why going on higher tiers when i can have the same/more experience/fun on low tiers?

 

Nobody forces you to grind the higher tiers. If you have fun at T5, good for you. I try to get into the higher tiers because it is more challenging.

 

 Could it be the reason why the game seems to bleed of testers very fast?

 

Nope, some ppl just had ridicolous presumptions about the game, or ppl had interest, but discovered that the gameplay is not appealing to them.

And most of the ppl were just to damn lazy to actually learn anything about the game, got wrecked the one or two battles they played, cried on the forums to nerf this or that (and again, getting their asses handed by the community), and probably went back trying to pad their WNR driving a T18.

 

I agree that gameplay after T6 changes a lot, but how on earth can the developers adjust the high tier gameplay if they have not enough data/statistics on the ship performance.

 

[Exocet6951]

I think a more diverse choice of shells in higher tier could also motivate people.

 

Also, and this is just an idea, some kind of "enemy waters" mechanism, where there are enemy ground installations on the enemy side of the map, and the higher tier you go, the bigger and more diverse they get.

IE: At tier 5, a couple AA guns thrown in with a small pillbox and 127mm gun shooting at enemy ships passing, and a bigger fortified position at tierX.

WoWP uses that system already, after all, and it's one of the better things about that game.

[Orlunu]

Competitive play will be one of the big motivators, the other will be specialisation of ships once they flesh out the trees more.  At the moment, there are too few ships to really detect it, but each class of ship starts to branch off into more and more specialised styles when they started as more versatile.  This'll contribute a fair amount to the enjoyment of top tier play.  Better armour mechanics and so on should also favour higher tier ships.

[SBS]

dan-can summed up some of my opinions nicely. I don't really think their is a lack of incentive to grind higher tiers, at least in my opinion.

It is true that some ships feel a lot like each other, but then again, so they should. A tier 5 Kongo should feel generally the same as say, the tier 8 amagi. Afterall play a certain line because they like those ships. if they then suddenly encounter a tank that is completely different from the rest it may no longer appeal to them, and then that ship in the line just becomes a bad grind for a lot of people.

Think of it like WoT, most lines have that 1 or 2 tanks that you just do not like to play, yet more or less have to in order to advance, unless you want to spend a lot of money.

 

With regards to the differences between nations. I believe they are there. The USN DD and IJN DD have completely different play styles and work in completely different way, so people can choose the line that feel best for them. With regards to CA, I see that both sides might play a bit the same, but they still have differences. USN generally have better turrets and AA, while IJN got the benefit of torpedoes. Yes, they generally play the same, but with small differences. Same way that most Medium lines across the nations in WoT generally play the same, but with different characteristics.

I am sure that we will see a lot more different play styles and ships much more diverse ships as times goes on.

 

The difference between lower tiers and higher tiers is also big, especially for the IJN DD. You got faster turrets and reload times on torps but shorter range. With the IJN CA you go from small vulnerable CL that can't take much of a beating to CA that can actually stand up in a fight and don't have to rely on their torpedoes all the time. USN CA also go from very well armed but slow cruisers, to fast cruisers with torps to then again make a change to the big nasty CA at tier 6+.

 

With regards to carriers, well they are carriers. At least here secondary armaments and speed incrieses greatly at higher tiers.

 

Ofcourse this is just my opnion.

 

[DBaron]

I agree that it may seem a bit bland but SBS pointed out some differences are already there, also amor mechanics arent implemented yet. The 2 lines we have now should be seen as the baseline established to see what works, what doesnt and how so before fleshing out the trees, adding new ships, new nations and decide upon characteristics, before you can do any of that you need to establish the groundwork to build upon.

Imagine the balance chaos if everything would be implemented at the same time xD

[conductiv]

my biggest problem is its high focus on gunnery...it has a ton of mechanics..but since nothing is as easy and effective as "aim AP at the enemy citadel" its basically all I do. and it bored me quickly...

 

-ships are not mobile enough to make any effective use of mobility strategies (even with the scale differences that basically make them as fast as F1 cars)

-while stealth gameplay with a DD is fun, doing torpedo-runs is either suicidal or a lottery.

-you can play the CV "manual torpedo drop" minigame, though the idea didn't appeal to me so I never did it personally.

-AA support focus doesn't feel rewarding or fun

-HE the alternative ammo is next to useless, relying on its 45 second!! DoT that can instantly be removed to make up for AP's insane spike damage.

-armor mechanics seem moot, especially on flimsier ships.

[Takeda92]

Don't forget you pay a hell of a lot more, to the point of losing credits on high tiers. Adding that the ships who are way lower tiered than you still poses the same threat a ship in your tier does.

 

Increasing AA to the point of it being actually significant (as in, you can actually kill the scout plane) in high tiers can be something they do to destroyers, especially when it comes to the new challenges they face at high tiers of increased plane presence and reduced invisibility and maneuverability. Buffing Mobility on high tier cruisers is also an idea since on many of them you don't get any relevant HP or DPM increase (Senjou should be a lot more mabile to compensate the poor HP and torpedo range it has)

 

 

[Xevious_Red]

Ive found that HE works well in a division - one cruiser landing round after round of HE doing virtually no HP damage but knocking out turrets/secondarys,while causing fires. The other cruiser uses AP and chews health off the battleship. If they both use AP the health goes faster, but its still as dangerous as ever, so you get 6 turrets shooting at you etc.

Knock out a bunch of turrets and secondarys, and suddenly its ripe for a close range torp run.

[RapscallionDK]

my biggest problem is its high focus on gunnery...it has a ton of mechanics..but since nothing is as easy and effective as "aim AP at the enemy citadel" its basically all I do. and it bored me quickly...

 

-ships are not mobile enough to make any effective use of mobility strategies (even with the scale differences that basically make them as fast as F1 cars)

-while stealth gameplay with a DD is fun, doing torpedo-runs is either suicidal or a lottery.

-you can play the CV "manual torpedo drop" minigame, though the idea didn't appeal to me so I never did it personally.

-AA support focus doesn't feel rewarding or fun

-HE the alternative ammo is next to useless, relying on its 45 second!! DoT that can instantly be removed to make up for AP's insane spike damage.

-armor mechanics seem moot, especially on flimsier ships.

 

- Bigger ships arent supposed to be that mobile. The destroyers are very mobile, dont see any problem here.

- I agree with Destroyers being usually a suicide run. The US destroyers has to get very close because of the shorter torp range but all nations destroyers cant do much once smoke is on cooldown. Its not fun to play DDs dying so easily.

- The manual torp drop from the torp planes i only use when a target is stationary or moving very slow. Its an option to get more hits if you can anticipate the movement of your target but i wouldnt recommend it. Again dont see the problem in having the option.

- Agree, the AA is not very accurate and rewarding atm. I find planes can easiy move past ships with AA without taking any big dmg.

- HE is meant to start fires on ships, nothing else. You hit the ship up with HE to start a fire, the enemy player then uses his repair and puts it on cooldown and you hit him again starting another fire he cant repair for a while.

- Dunno really what you mean by this point but if you talking about the smaller ships having no armor i think its more the fact that the bigger ships has huge guns. However, id like the option to upgrade the armor more.

 

In general the choices to make is very limited,  i was hoping that you could specialize your ship abit more to enchance different parts of the ship to your playstyle. Lets see what the future brings.

[Xevious_Red]

[quote name=

[conductiv]

 

- Bigger ships arent supposed to be that mobile. The destroyers are very mobile, dont see any problem here.

- I agree with Destroyers being usually a suicide run. The US destroyers has to get very close because of the shorter torp range but all nations destroyers cant do much once smoke is on cooldown. Its not fun to play DDs dying so easily.

- The manual torp drop from the torp planes i only use when a target is stationary or moving very slow. Its an option to get more hits if you can anticipate the movement of your target but i wouldnt recommend it. Again dont see the problem in having the option.

- Agree, the AA is not very accurate and rewarding atm. I find planes can easiy move past ships with AA without taking any big dmg.

- HE is meant to start fires on ships, nothing else. You hit the ship up with HE to start a fire, the enemy player then uses his repair and puts it on cooldown and you hit him again starting another fire he cant repair for a while.

- Dunno really what you mean by this point but if you talking about the smaller ships having no armor i think its more the fact that the bigger ships has huge guns. However, id like the option to upgrade the armor more.

 

In general the choices to make is very limited,  i was hoping that you could specialize your ship abit more to enchance different parts of the ship to your playstyle. Lets see what the future brings.

 

-ships in this game are actually very fast, but it doesn't feel that way and hence you cannot formulate any playstyle that relies on mobility. the destroyers are and feel fast and agile...but they lack on other critical area's to make the mobile playstyle a possibility.

-about HE, well I have been running the numbers and even for a ammo that would solely depend on its ability to inflict fires and criticals..it just doesn't work...fire is too weak or the real fire chance is too low.

keep in mind that the listed fire chance only applies on CV's all other classes are only lit on fire for a fraction of those odds, you will need about 15-20 shots that hit to get a >50% chance to light a BB on fire even with 12% chance of causing a fire. (maths would indicate roughly half that number..however in the game every non CV ship seems to take far more shots before being lit on fire)

the fire damage is "% of max HP" so its effective on high HP targets, but its something like 0.5 or 0.4% every 2 seconds and the highest HP targets has a extra in-build heal that simply out-heals it (basically forcing you to inflict 4 fires to get ANY effect of it, 1 for the repair, and 2 to counter the healing caused by the self repair ability, the 4th will actually start inflicting damage..but by that time the self repair ability will likely be back up)

HE ammo rarely knocks out main guns for more then a few seconds (the most common damage is on AA guns), AP on the other hand outright destroys main guns beyond repair on penetration

you can use fire to force the repair and set up for much stronger sinking DoT caused by torps, but the fire chance from flimsy DD guns is so low that that's simply not worth the effort or risk

the odds of fire are quite good on BB's, but they are more likely to 3-4 shot volly a enemy BB using AP..causing so much spike damage that can drill straight through the repairs and heal. meaning that it just wouldn't be a wise idea to use HE on anything but a carrier...and even that is questionable as it can be killed insanely fast with standard AP.

 

this doesn't mean you can't get the occasional good game with HE...but it would be 2-3 times better if you used AP

 

-armor is moot means that flimsy ships have a hard time not getting hit in the zones where they get 3 shot...the weaker the ship in HP seems to go hand in hand with the likelihood that it gets hit for high damage. low HP + taking high damage vs high HP ships that are less likely to get citadeled..aka the double defense dilemma

 

 

AA depends what you spec'd into - try a cleveland with the mods of more survival AA turrets, +20% range, and the skills of +10% AA effectiveness, +20% AA range, and defensive fire so you pabic their bombers. Throw on the mod of +20% rudder shift and you can dodge their torps.

Then team up with another cleveland equipped the same and watch CV players cry. 

Now you dont get much xp for the planes so you have to actually shoot ships still but AA can be effective.

 

I find the available modifications can effect playstyles - I used to use the kongo for long range with modificatio s for better accuracy. I'm now using modifications/skills to complement the secondary batteries, and using the speed of the kongo to close to 5km and let the secondarys chew things up while i can aim for citadels

 

even with a topped out AA range its still so small that the enemy can simply fly around it, the weaker guns on the edge are so weak that a T6+ carrier can fly in, bait defensive fire (this one panics by default, the upgrade only increases the AA damage by 20% during the skill effect and reduces the cooldown)...fly out and then bomb whatever ship you are escorting..

 

and even if you get someone that starts a dogfight right above your ship, he loses some planes that earns me practically nothing..and if its early in the game he will simply replace them with the other 12-18 waiting on his ship. I have never seen a CV player cry about a CA, only about the opposing CV if its a higher tier with upgraded fighters. so AA feels useless and the reward feels insignificant.

 

AP kongo focused on secondairies works, much like AP (any ship with decent guns) and secondairies (provided it has any)...the problem for me is that its the only style that seems to work and pay off

 

[Orlunu]

-ships in this game are actually very fast, but it doesn't feel that way and hence you cannot formulate any playstyle that relies on mobility. the destroyers are and feel fast and agile...but they lack on other critical area's to make the mobile playstyle a possibility.

Simply untrue.  Some people do plenty well on them with mobile playstyles.

-about HE, well I have been running the numbers and even for a ammo that would solely depend on its ability to inflict fires and criticals..it just doesn't work...fire is too weak or the real fire chance is too low.

keep in mind that the listed fire chance only applies on CV's all other classes are only lit on fire for a fraction of those odds, you will need about 15-20 shots that hit to get a >50% chance to light a BB on fire even with 12% chance of causing a fire. (maths would indicate roughly half that number..however in the game every non CV ship seems to take far more shots before being lit on fire)

the fire damage is "% of max HP" so its effective on high HP targets, but its something like 0.5 or 0.4% every 2 seconds and the highest HP targets has a extra in-build heal that simply out-heals it (basically forcing you to inflict 4 fires to get ANY effect of it, 1 for the repair, and 2 to counter the healing caused by the self repair ability, the 4th will actually start inflicting damage..but by that time the self repair ability will likely be back up)

HE ammo rarely knocks out main guns for more then a few seconds (the most common damage is on AA guns), AP on the other hand outright destroys main guns beyond repair on penetration

you can use fire to force the repair and set up for much stronger sinking DoT caused by torps, but the fire chance from flimsy DD guns is so low that that's simply not worth the effort or risk

the odds of fire are quite good on BB's, but they are more likely to 3-4 shot volly a enemy BB using AP..causing so much spike damage that can drill straight through the repairs and heal. meaning that it just wouldn't be a wise idea to use HE on anything but a carrier...and even that is questionable as it can be killed insanely fast with standard AP.

What is future armour update?  What are destroyers?

 

this doesn't mean you can't get the occasional good game with HE...but it would be 2-3 times better if you used AP

What is changing shell types mid game?

 

-armor is moot means that flimsy ships have a hard time not getting hit in the zones where they get 3 shot...the weaker the ship in HP seems to go hand in hand with the likelihood that it gets hit for high damage. low HP + taking high damage vs high HP ships that are less likely to get citadeled..aka the double defense dilemma

This is a short term problem, why is it even being brought up in this context?  Calling it "the double defense dilemma" is also misleading in plenty of ways.

 

even with a topped out AA range its still so small that the enemy can simply fly around it, the weaker guns on the edge are so weak that a T6+ carrier can fly in, bait defensive fire (this one panics by default, the upgrade only increases the AA damage by 20% during the skill effect and reduces the cooldown)...fly out and then bomb whatever ship you are escorting..

I've had plenty of games where you shoot down tons of planes, and I don't even play good AA ships.

 

and even if you get someone that starts a dogfight right above your ship, he loses some planes that earns me practically nothing..and if its early in the game he will simply replace them with the other 12-18 waiting on his ship. I have never seen a CV player cry about a CA, only about the opposing CV if its a higher tier with upgraded fighters. so AA feels useless and the reward feels insignificant.

I've heard plenty of carriers crying about Clevelands, as well as a little about other ships.  Winning is insignificant?

 

AP kongo focused on secondairies works, much like AP (any ship with decent guns) and secondairies (provided it has any)...the problem for me is that its the only style that seems to work and pay off

Long rage primary batteries focus and short range secondaries focus are two different styles.  You can't label two different styles as "the only style", and BBs were never meant to be the most flexible class anyway.

 

[conductiv]

-snip-

 

-I don't see those mobile play-styles, haven't seen a streamer or instruction vid regarding them, they must be rather rare

-you can blow a DD out of the water with 1 AP volly of everything but a DD, the only reason to use HE to break the engine on DD's when you are a DD..see Ichase vids for that..why switch ammo on anything else?...oh yes a CV so he can't launch planes....the sole exception where HE might actually be adequate... future is first see then comment on it...I'm commenting on how the armor is now, not in the future. 

-again the survivability problems is how it is now..I'm not commenting on the unborn problems of tomorrow

-I shot down plenty of planes as well, doesn't mean I won the game or it made any significant contribution. but I am fairly sure I won most games where I did sink a lot of ships. the point that you did it in non-AA ships only indicates the low value of AA specialized ships 

-shooting down "plenty" of planes doesn't mean you auto win or even make a significant contribution. and while you have heard some player whine about a clevelands AA (and not its guns...because there is plenty of whining about that)...I haven't..I did hear a LOT of whining about higher tier enemy CV's and a modicum about BB's having to much AA. (you can probably find some forum threads on the first page about it right now.)

-upgrading main and secondary armament seems to be the way to go, ignoring any skills or setups that focus on other things (unless main and sec armament cannot be upgraded in that slot naturally, or you are playing a DD) this is also advised in most instruction vids that deal with captain skills (see Ichase again)

 

if you are trying to tell me that the current flaws are only temporary or don't exist because they don't apply in a few specific situations I'm afraid you are missing the point. yes HE works against a DD and the fire does cripple a CV...but I won't be fighting just them and AP works almost just as well if not better, yes AA can win the game occasionally...if the enemy CV acts like a bot...

 

 

 

[Orlunu]

[SBS]

With regards to the destroyers and mobile play style. It seems that most people just aren't patient enough, have no clue how to/lack the skill, don't find it fun or what ever. I have seen several DD win games because they popped in and out, doing hit and run all over the map. Even had a few domination games won solely because DD wen't from cap circle to cap circle capping them and just avoiding engagements. I personally love to play the IJN DD and launch torpedoes from long range. Yes they don't allways hit, but they generally piss people off cause they reduce the space they can move or else get hit. It also keeps people on their toes all the time. Also as a lot of maps have several islands you can hug them in your DD's and then sneak up to within 2-3km of a BB when he comes around the island and just unleash torps on them. Yeh you might take a lot of damage, you might die. but you know that he will die for certain, unless you are very unlucky.

 

Generally I find that DD and CA are actually the most versatile ships to play, with BB being the least. Even CV have multiple play styles. You can focus on sneaking planes through to hit high valuable targets like CV or BB, you can do scouting and help spot enemy DD. You can aim to gain air supremacy and cover your fleet. All these playstyles do play abit alike, but the chances to be versatile is there.

 

Again this is my opinion, and I do agree that a lot of things need to be done still with balance and so on. But generally I think they are on the right direction.

 

Also high tiers will continue to cost more to run than they earn. Just like WoT. This is to prevent people from just blitzing through the game as well making sure people will go down and play lower tiers now and then. But most important of all, it encourages people to buy premium ships and account. They are trying to earn money, what did you all exspect 

[chaplainDMK]

With regards to the destroyers and mobile play style. It seems that most people just aren't patient enough, have no clue how to/lack the skill, don't find it fun or what ever. I have seen several DD win games because they popped in and out, doing hit and run all over the map. Even had a few domination games won solely because DD wen't from cap circle to cap circle capping them and just avoiding engagements. I personally love to play the IJN DD and launch torpedoes from long range. Yes they don't allways hit, but they generally piss people off cause they reduce the space they can move or else get hit. It also keeps people on their toes all the time. Also as a lot of maps have several islands you can hug them in your DD's and then sneak up to within 2-3km of a BB when he comes around the island and just unleash torps on them. Yeh you might take a lot of damage, you might die. but you know that he will die for certain, unless you are very unlucky.

 

Generally I find that DD and CA are actually the most versatile ships to play, with BB being the least. Even CV have multiple play styles. You can focus on sneaking planes through to hit high valuable targets like CV or BB, you can do scouting and help spot enemy DD. You can aim to gain air supremacy and cover your fleet. All these playstyles do play abit alike, but the chances to be versatile is there.

 

Again this is my opinion, and I do agree that a lot of things need to be done still with balance and so on. But generally I think they are on the right direction.

 

Also high tiers will continue to cost more to run than they earn. Just like WoT. This is to prevent people from just blitzing through the game as well making sure people will go down and play lower tiers now and then. But most important of all, it encourages people to buy premium ships and account. They are trying to earn money, what did you all exspect 

 

Forcing people to play low tiers this way is genius. Navy Field had a catastrophic flaw that you didn't need to go back to play low tiers, and you had to train the crew from the first ship onwards. So when new people stopped comming, more and more high-tier players started accumulating, and nobody had incentive to go play low tiers. And the difference between a BB1 and BB3 or 4 or even 5 in Navy Field was huge. Early BB's had no range, no armor, no health, their crews were bad so you didn't have any accuracy, your reload was slow, and your repair was insignificant. At first this wasn't a problem as you had other low tier BB's to play against, but later on rooms would be more and more filled with only BB4s and 5s, and later even BB6s when they came out. At that point you just scavaged around, hoping to steal some damage when an enemy wasn't looking, or do AA cover.

Basically it was hell, and it got worse and worse as more low level people started leaving as it became so annoying to play. 

[PanzerFuchs]

I long since learned that a higher tier machine in a Wargaming game doesn't necessarily translate to "more fun" or "better battles".

 

The game essentially works the same way on every tier, the differing specs on different tier ships just make the battles play out in unique ways on each tier respectively. Top tiers are usually occupied by persistent players who've accumulated quite a bit of experience getting there and thus the higher tiers as gaming environments are a lot less forgiving of mistakes and require quite a bit on concentration and knowhow. That's what keeps me off the higher tiers, the games are way too serious and so are the repair bills.

 

I've found my love at tier 7 with the Mogami and I'm in no rush to get to the Senjo, or to any Tier 10 for that matter.

[krautjaeger]

Somewhat far off from higher tiers but weather would be a cool factor, engagements in a storm f.ex. High waves, low visibility. To some, but limited, extent rough seas would mimic the behaviour of elevation albeit temporarily. Sure, we'd also miss a lot more but that just adds to the fun and 'oh-noes/shite' factor as well. :-)

[SBS]

Somewhat far off from higher tiers but weather would be a cool factor, engagements in a storm f.ex. High waves, low visibility. To some, but limited, extent rough seas would mimic the behaviour of elevation albeit temporarily. Sure, we'd also miss a lot more but that just adds to the fun and 'oh-noes/shite' factor as well. :-)

 

Weather has been something that has been desired since alpha as well as night battle maps. If this sort of stuff gets implemented, it will likely happen some time after release. Not sure if it is actually possible with the engine, or it might be too much work. But you can allways hope 

[krautjaeger]

 

Weather has been something that has been desired since alpha as well as night battle maps. If this sort of stuff gets implemented, it will likely happen some time after release. Not sure if it is actually possible with the engine, or it might be too much work. But you can allways hope 

 

Should be possible with this engine. Old Empire Total War's engine managed to have rough seas, and that is not really more advanced than this one. :-)

[SBS]

 

Should be possible with this engine. Old Empire Total War's engine managed to have rough seas, and that is not really more advanced than this one. :-)

 

Well. I am no programmer so I just ask and prey it's possible 

[conductiv]

-snip-

 

Overall it doesn't matter whether or not you agree with me, WG decides future actions mainly on demographics and what their own people can come up with. I'm just 1 tester of many, and if my opinion is different so be it.... its a futile effort to change opinions so its better to leave at "agreeing to disagree".

 

I named what I felt where the biggest flaws of this game...in a single sentence I'd say "its the lack of actual choice" 

 

about your HE snipe, actually yes...shooting HE in WoT with anything but arty or a derp is like trying to shoot a tank with a BB gun. terribly ineffective...HE as a tank ammo became plain useless in that game, apart from the occasional niche use that is. and I did actually hope this game would correct that mistake, because it did look like that for a bit. As I see it...and I might be wrong here...is that if you have 2 types of ammo, those shells should be useful in the game, hollow points for the HP bag with no armor, armor piercing for the guy wearing a kitchen stove over his chest kinda thing, and the guy in between should be screwed by both. 

 

Ammo wise WoT is AP or whatever gold/premium/expensive ammo you can or want to afford to stuff in the gun, seems this game is going the same way..1 good ammo...1 that could just as well be removed, and possibly later added third that blows both out of the water

 

 

[Vogel]

Don't underestimate the lure of playing "the ultimate ship". for instance Yamato 

[Vulgarny]

Why anyone want to play Failmato?