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

Before the open test - How I would design the CV rework

Feedback for after you have read it all.  

14 members have voted

  1. 1. What do you think of my thoughts. And thank you.

    • Good. WG hire this person. Now.
    • Good. Interesting and creative enough.
    • Good...? For effort only.
    • Bad. But don't take it personally, just my opinion. Or just won't be able to happen for this game.
    • Bad. Just little things here and there.
    • Bad. To quote yourself, "baaaad". Ridiculous suggestions. Shame. WG pls keep your sanity and stay away from this.
    • Don't know don't care too long didn't
    • Other (please leave a post, much obliged!)

11 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
803 posts
4,376 battles

I couldn't care less about the rest of the game, but CV I really care about. 


This post is meant as notes to be reviewed after I see and test the gameplay of new CV scheme. The points I have written here before being influenced and occupied with the new reality of CV, may provide insight that is useful.

(Also in case WG is reading this, please let me participate in the test. I haven't played in a while, but I have played CV since beta, was briefly amongst the top listed CV players on EU, (and the only one listed to be using an AS Hakuryu). It means I played for teamwork and utility support, which is sorta new a concept to some ppl even now. Also clan, lots of other ships, etc. Shamelessly. For everyone else, I hope this encourages you to finish reading my long post. Sorry. You might want to bring a highligher. Ok nevermind I set everything to bold so you can read it easier.)



1. Points on Hypothetical controls for new CV scheme

2. Points on Hypothetical mechanics of new CV assets

2. Other Game Mechanics that may need to be updated for the new scheme

3. AA and air related Match-level changes

4. Other Game-level changes that can be considered as improvements, but far away from practically implemented

5. What a rework means and good luck.



I leave this part to WG to figure out during the procedural testing

- And how to implement it into console controls.

[ AI ]: a point to bring up is AI-assisted, or semi-automated controls. Which will be potentially very helpful for consoles.

- Some of these can simply be camera customization options and such dummy options, which players can preset to their preference, even depending on different phase of a single action such as a strike. (The new BF series allows customization of zoom levels and angles per class, per gun, per sight)

- Actual AI usage can revolve around assisted control options to help with managing your planes such as "Emergency spread" , "Return to CV at will", "Split", "Counter Air" (some of those strike planes have machine guns too), Panic release (panic strike all), if system allows for such depth of gameplay and soft simulation

- On the panic-strike, a good idea even with current level of projected depth / simulation sophistication. It means all planes panic (panicked is an adjective, but also potentially a serious in-game status effect now) release their loadouts at any available target within imminent strike range ASAP and then getfo of there. You will deplete your whole sortie blob at once but maybe it's worth it? Doesn't happen instantly. As is all strikes.


(2. )

Players can customize in-game loadout per sortie (one resupply and sending out of a 'blob' of planes).

- This is due to the large selection of ordinance available, including smokes, flares, AP/HE/light/heavy/precision-dive/level-drop/guided bombs, anti-submarine charges, rockets, shallow(quick-arm)/normal/deep-water torpedoes, chaff, etc.

- Different 'hard' loadouts (selected in the tier tree) will limit some choices

- This will force players to preemptively plan their strike capability and target, and allow CV gameplay to be more strategic, intellectual, varied, and precise

- It will also alleviate the sometimes immense difference in strike capability between nations

- Fighters take up sortie slots. See below.


Maximum plane count of sortie will depend on tier and hanger of CV (the blob of planes the player controls per resupply)

- Due to large size of higher tier CV flight wings, a default minimum number of fighters will take up plane slots in the sortie, depending on nation, tier, etc, lessening total strike planes so CV strikes will not be op while maintaining a guise of historical accuracy of hanger sizes, this can change depending on hard loadout

- Larger sorties can strike multiple times depending on 'release per strike' which varies by nation, CV, loadout, etc. but one strike at a time (as also limited by new control+camera scheme). This lessens alpha-strike potential akin to old style CV having to strike one squad at a time, and makes consistent AA matter more / give more time for reactions

- See (AA mechanics) in section 3 for how 'consistent AA' can be balanced


Maximum release and formation per strike will depend primarily on nation and wing formation for the CV 

- Formation per strike can also vary depending etc.


Fighters - More fighters is more AA, but AA is also reworked to be more consistent and less about outright damage

- Fighters take up precious strike plane slots, with a minimum amount required per sortie

- Fighters can suppress enemy strikes and lessen accuracy / effectiveness, even kill (down) planes as normal AA does

- Friendly fighters will try to keep enemy fighters busy and lessen suppression effect

- Fighters will also simulate strafing surface AA to lessen suppression from surface-ship AA sources

- Some special fighters can even carry light bombs / flares / smoke / night vision / radar and other scientific equipment / light rockets / chaff etc.

- Long range and high altitude fighters can engage enemy planes even before strike phase (while they are circling at high altitude queued up by the 'release size', as strikes now happen one at a time)

- Fighters are AI operated, escorting your plane blob similarly to how scout fighters patrol around their ships.


Strikes do not happen instantly.

- Besides the wind-up time in which planes fly to their target and manage their aim, the actual strike of some strike types / depending on options / will also happen over a brief time period instead of instantly.

- Because all bombs hitting at once, together, is a sort of an alpha strike, and alpha strikes are baaad.

- It is also completely unrealistic, uncinematic, unimmersive, unbelievable, which are all baaaaad.

- You want the CV to take some time in the action too. Trust me it is satisfying and rewarding.

- Some (depending on options) will still allow instant strikes. Yes it is an option (feature) now. Probably some elite historical based squad (which you damn well make into the keypoint of a happy occasion and event) with the training to pull that off. See I instantly turned something mundane, if bad, into something special and good in reverse. Some ppl will disagree because they are humorless and don't like magic tricks.



AA can suppress and stun, instead of current 'damage-until-kill' system.

- Suppression gradually increases "panic" and lessens strike efficiency / accuracy

- Stun causes critical mechanical failures in planes, which may or may be fatal, not to mention interrupt strikes in progress for that plane, stun is gradually built up from suppression

- Stun can happen again and again until a plane is very much failure and very much dead. Then it is officially downed.

- Note a failured plane is more susceptible to further stuns as it is simulated that it cannot dodge as well / pilot is injured / instruments malfunctioning / etc. Exact maths will be precise but done by the devs so players won't have to.

- A combination of certain stuns (failures) can also result in instant critical damage if you are unlucky (engine fire + fuel leak, anyone? or just the good old "omg they blew off my right wing")

- This is actually quite similar to the system of another certain Wargame franchise by Eugene Systems, except they calculate damage separately, and there are no "stuns/failures" that result in instant critical damage, like War Thunder.

As this means a perfectly fine plane can be 'alpha-striked', pardon my term. Alpha-strikes are bad.

- Panic can be alleviated by pilot training, however so that is implemented (pilot as officers with own mini skill trees pretty please, I mean even Battlefield franchise in introducing progression trees for every single gun). Panic decreases with success (moral boost) and decreases by time (calming down).


AA efficiency can vary by angle / protocols

- Angle is straightforward. Every AA and its effective angle is simulated. Even its height angle effectiveness.

- Protocols means whether their firing pattern (as ordered by the officers and enabled by AA gunner crew training)(cough more skill trees cough) is adapted to handle an incoming flight of torpedo bombers, or imminent strike of dive bombers. 

- This firing pattern, naturally, simulates where and how they are firing. If their firing pattern matches the strike type, its efficiency will increase. Drastically.

- Firing pattern is usually handled automatically, but can be forced manually. Some firing patterns are limited depending on nation / ship type / AA armament selection etc. Its info will still be shown in-game UI as a little additional info bar (amongst other UI improvements / additions).

- AA surviveability is to be reworked (mostly increased). AA can now be repaired. 

- AA cross-firing, teamwork, and ship angles (covering each other) actually matters now. As is altering protocols and some other tricks for some really high level synchronized play (competitive).

- Quality of AA mounts including dual purpose and special type AA loadout (e.g. Rockets, Proximity shells, Type-3 artillery, Barrage Balloons, Incendiary) is all to be worked into the new system with as much soft simulation as possible. Those electronic AA fire control systems actually matter.

- As is losing your fire control towers. Yes, add them on as modules. The artillery ones too. Historical accuracy and all that. More simulation yeh.


Pilot progression system.

- You know ppl will mod their national heroes / waifus into the pilot officer portraits. This is a good thing. It also saves you the copyright fees and legal procedures to actually (officially) use real national heroes.

- Lead pilot of every strike release (depending on limit) is always an Ace. This Ace is always the last to be downed (due to magic, and gameplay balance needs). This Ace is the pilot with a skill tree. 

- Some skills affect the whole strike squadron. Some skills only affect the Ace.

- Skills can be very creative and varied, not to mention limited Aces can have limited skills. (Not every youtuber wants to be a captain.) Creative skill example: Ace goes berserk after seeing all his comrades die. Temporarily gains incredible combat stats at cost of burnout after a brief time period.

- Collect Aces! So many successful games (mostly mobile) revolve around collection theme. Not actually a serious suggestion.

- Ace can radio little speech bubbles during game. Provides extra notification on status and some other info, which is both fun and useful. Can be turned off / customized.

- Historical Aces can also have limited plane deco and models. Why stop at ships skins? 


Overall systems should be more slower but steadier paced, both air and surface combat. This is relevant for all sections.



(4.)Far, away, over the rainbow ... nothing. is. bolded. None-serious section.


Rework flood, fire, citadel mechanics.

- Citadels are overly punishing. That is bad.

- Fire is too rigid, thus unimmersive unbelievable and can be improved.

- Flooding causes flat damage. Seriously that is as far from a soft simulation of flooding as possible. 

- I recommend you check out one of my old posts for ideas on how to rework these aspects. (Hint: Flooding acts like poison. Fire varies primarily by ship class, and damage control mechanic is reworked to accommodate, with both passive and active effects. Oh also you can flood magazines to prevent exploosions.


Add ship damage simulation.

- Mainly want ships to list when flooded and damaged. And some other cinematic improvements. 

- Can affect gameplay too. It'll be a bonus. It'll be like Christmas come true to see WG actually try to make their game into a naval simulator.

- Note a lot of damage simulation, if historically speaking, cannot depart from a discussion of armour and ship design. Which will vary by ship. Which is like, a lot more complicated than Krupp and Pen value by angle of armour. A lot more.

- Some "soft" aspects, historically, also affected ship ... surviveability, so to speak. Who knew British propellant was more flammable than Germans? And thin deck armour didn't help. Thin deck armour by itself did not make their ships a living fireworks box. But Thin deck armour with poor flash protection and propellant handing practice (those rapid firing guns don't rapid fire by themselves) make for some interesting chain effects. Also armoured carriers. Hint: carriers hate fire. Some more than others. BUT was it just the fire? (vapors) So much depth if you want to go in. Ship stability while partially flooded. Torpedo protection design. All can be simulated. All can be meaningful.

- It'll be like Christmas, World Peace, Birthday, Jesus, and lots of things all come together if WG actually tried to make their game into a naval celebrator.

- Someone, someday, will make that though, make no doubt. Might be an AI instead of human devs, because singularity is nigh. Yes you can some of what I'm smoking. Ok I'll stop this bullet point.

- WAIT one more thing. Ships can install dummy smoke launchers and coloured lights to make them look like their innards are burning to a crisp, while all they did was turn on stage-quality special effects.


More war-like info sharing. Not all info of an enemy ship is instantly available on site. Sometimes more info (intelligence) gathering and better vision coverage is required.

- I am 99% sure that very few captains if any at all during the actual war could distinguish the exact "HP" or whatever that is of a ship at 28 km, but which we can do, instantly, at a press of alternative interface button.

- Now, with rework (improvement) of the vision system, the info-system linked to vision-system can also be reworked.

- This will matter for subs, if they are ever introduced. Even modern nuclear subs cannot outright distinguish surface conditions, nigh, even receive/intercept purposefully directed surface communication sometimes, while underwater. If they use the same old info system we use now it will be bad (in short).

- Adds tactical and strategic gameplay depth. 


Overhaul vision system. (Includes radar)

- Recommend threshold-based intelligence system. Having vision of a target will then be but a certain band within the whole array of possibilities. Other points on the array can be "silhouette, ship (type) unknown" "rough position shown, but updated every few seconds instead of consistently and instantly" "rough direction known, but cannot distinguish between if island or massive Japanese conning tower, also wrecking havoc on my radar" (Yes, can even hide actual landmass and map features on "simulated procedurally generated unbefore seen maps", a luxury possibly reserved for themed competitive events only).

- Recommend secondary "intelligence" based game mechanic that allows for calling in ... favours. Call it the "escalation" system. This system will work similarly to the concept of "gathering resources" in RTS games. So DDs maintaining stealth to provide vision will still feel they are useful (they are). The more they see, the more interactions both friend-foe and foe-foe they see, the more points. Almost as if spotting generated experience points, and intelligence was soft-linked to spotting-based experience points amount.


More randomization and sigma.

- WAIT sigma is not always bad. But instead of the fixed sigma nowadays, imagine a stabilized and weighted then slightly variable sigma. 

- Depending on ship modules (fire control) and ship status (alive is usually a good start). Depending on skills taken. Depending on atmospheric weather status. Depending on ammunition types (and how some nations made better/less reliable ammo for some guns). Depending on how overloaded (top-heavy) your DD is and how it is struggling to weather those typhoon waves. Depending on whether your ship is listing and turning to a certain angle. Depending on how much time you allowed the plotting room to generate a result (very slightly simulated artillery circle variance, unless electronic room, but even then). Depending on target status (current example is camo 4%. But can also be vision threshold, allied artillery results sharing on comms, spotter plane feedback, etc.)

- Randomization is just a little soft randomization, to add more variety, alleviate boredom, and introduce just a little excitement to the game. Its all to be worked for more fun, still fair, less punishing confidentiality for players, and just good design directions.


Multi-sector modular maps. (BF series use large maps which it only opens up one contained sector at a time, depending on the game mode / stage of the game objective progress, but the whole stretch of the map is designed.)

- Skirmish, or melee games, can use a specific section of the map that is cleverly divided, marked and strewn with objectives in a way that is still fair and fun, yet can be varied and even semi-different per game. Takes some clever map designing. Very clever map designing.

- CV one sector behind. As a potential solution for "what happens to my CV". For BF style "tug of war" games only.

Map-zone based matchmaking.

- If in-depth weather simulation is a thing, then a big difference between tropical and arctic maps is to be expected. Sandbanks, glare, and coral versus iceberg, freezing, and ocean currents. Players may prefer to bring different loadouts, even whole different ships, depending on themed map packs / the few maps available for that "zone". A soft solution to "I want this type of game but I get this map again holy fffffff"

- Too much wind for CV planes to take off. Optioners rejoice. (Until they realize some missions / rewards softly nudge them to play a healthy variation modes and maps)

- Immersion. Themes. Seasonal Events for certain zones of maps. Now you can balance a seasonal events and your halloween ships without having to take the whole enormous game into account every time. Also, premiums-as-star modes. See one of my old posts. All you need to know is that it will help sell premiums while still being fair for non-premium users (at least include a non-premium but high tier ship within each theme rotation, for one, and voila).


New map mechanics.

- The aforementioned corals, icebergs (floating), sandbanks, some ships can pass over shallows, other ships simply can't, some ships can brute force through corals (with matching and satisfying crunching sounds), ice affects torpedoes, etc. Lots of room for creativity and make players feel good about their ship.

- Undersea volcano eruption event. Throw a wrench in someone's gameplay (hopefully not), just make it fun then. Counts as randomization.

- Probably more but I forgot. I'm sure players and devs can come up with more. Maybe I should consult my old content, or the oldest content of all, the "notes-cronomicon" (80k)


Multi-tiered games, multi-phased games.

- Pretty straight forward. Imitate BF series for examples for the phase part.

- For tier part, an example is imagine a scouting phase where light ships only and escort carriers only participate. Then comes the main fleet with a higher tier flagship. This means multi-tier is inseparable from and linked to the concept of multi-phase.

- Inter-tier balancing can be accomplished if it is planned for during the overhaul of the crucial game mechanics sections of vision, damage effects, etc. to help balance ship capability more towards the system, the environment, the actual gameplay and their choices, and away from too much depending on the ship itself which can be overpowered. If more scoring and match tallying mechanics are devised, those can help to by "paper" balancing ships instead of by raw capability (higher tier or bigger ship both worth more and loses more points), etc.

- Polish and player experience friendlyness is a key part here. For instance, make the scouting phase shorter, or any occasion where a smaller ship might unceremoniously get alpha-killed, be less consequential, less impacting on the player, aka. make that phase shorter. Maybe allow for a respawning of some lesser ships later.

- Technology and ingenuity will make this happen. Imagine this, I call it the "fate" system: on two different sectors of the map, it is told to players battles are taking place. The outcome of these battles affect future scenario building and map seeding. But how do you sync two completely different matches, then "mash them together" later, without imposing unimmersive time limits, or unsmooth integration? Simple, you don't. Instead of marking and linking battles together at their inception, mark them at their ending. So it doesn't matter how many battles start and finish, as long as battles are continuously starting and finishing, which is surely to happen across a server cluster. This gives the illusion that a fleet of players had allies battling partly for their sake all along, and now they finally come together as a team for the next stage or even the grand finale of that chain of multi-phased games. This is true showmanship, game design. Procedurally generated storytelling. "Multiplayer single-player-campaigns" (already happening a little in Monster Hunter World).

- That was just a basic example. More advanced examples of the "fate" system such as how CV aerial reinforcements work cross-sector, mid-match reinforcements, "intelligence" modified reinforcements, system usage to enhance seasonal events and tournaments, even subtly matching friends and clan members together, by putting them into game modes that may sync game end times and result in them getting to enjoy the next game together without purposeful queueing, all are things of ingenuity, technology, showmanship and hosting/thinking for the players, and game design. Mentor systems for this game. "War modes" for clans. Everything links together.


More gamification. Make everything integrated.

- This part is sorta learned from Azur Lane. In how nothing you do in that game is technically wasted. Yes, a lot of it is RNG and thus potentially all of it is wasted, but that's now how human psychology perceives it. But all of it is meaningful for building up a player's collection of ships and fleets, and especially their enjoyment of what ships and fleets they have. Yes the skins are part of that.

- I'll be straight. Basically, translated to WoWs, it means integrating  all the loot and reward systems. So you don't use a separate system for containers. You don't use a completely separate system for each ship and captain and match. Free exp is a low-level example of cross-system integration. We want more of those, as those are always perceived by the players' psychology as rewarding, meaningful, and if they are implemented in a smooth, highly compact and cohesive experience (seriously, no one actually perceives that long wait before each container/crate as rewarding and tantalizing, it's just frustrating after about the 5th time). And yes getting a massive influx of resources and loot from ex. start of every ranked season where your 'kept ranks' dump their rewards on you all at once, should be a good thing, yet in this game it is trivialized as "oh more meaningless, trivial, more of the same resources of which nothing is special and now they just go sit in my warehouse now, oh what did I get I barely know I just clicked on them all at once" which is bad. It's not just about adding a long wait and receiving animation to these things either, it's about (learned from Azur Lane) the satisfying experience of mashing "collect completed mission reward" button in the rewards screen, then instantly re-dumping your received resources into immediate, useful, active stuff such as building your next ship, improving equipment, training your waifus, etc. at your choice a logic train of player agency and interaction. Instead of just "sit in warehouse/armoury which I can never view and everything in there is just arbitrary numbers that are meaningless as long as they are larger than 1"? 

- Ofc even the Azur Lane mobile phone model is not perfect nor, I admit, perfectly suitable as-is in both execution and concept for WoWs, but we learn from what we can.

- You don't want to hear what I learned from Kancolle. Hint, lots of Japanese stuff. Not all easily explainable, nor absolutely relevant to WoWs. But I would like to think I am ... er.. informed.

- Ok Ok fine. Just think of it this way. Instead of basing everything on business and market research etc., product ideas especially logic-based products such as art, games, etc. should always be driven by beauty, hope, and the best of higher things in life. Also, what is art, what I think gaming means to players as a person, and lots of deep stuff. See? Told you it wouldn't make much useful sense without lots of auxiliary explanation. I didn't even clarify what in the world is a "logic-based".


Themes. Seasonal Events. Premium.

- I think I indirectly covered a lot of related points in the above points already.


Does it actually matter, whether CV is RTS or some other style and theme?

-Yes. Short answer.

-Yes. Because in changing something huge like this, some things are gained, some things are lots, the overall personality of the game is changed forever, and certain directions of improvement and possibilities are forever closed while others are potentially opened. There are net changes in certain parts of the personality, soul, of the game. Differently styled art make different statements to its meaning, a game is no different. Some basic things are how serious it is, how expansive it is, which aspects of the immersion it focuses upon, how it places the player, etc.

- This is why even though, even the devs themselves cannot quite express it, but this looming unease which cannot solely explained by the business risks they are taking while doing a overhaul such as this. Because these are harsh and drastic changes. They do care about the game, since the beginning, (I'm good at observing this kind of stuff), and by now do resonate with it a lot. This does change the very soul of the game itself, and much is lost and much is gained, it is humbling and profoundly sad a thing and many more, all at the same time.


Last bit of rambling

- So don't belittle ppl on forums trying to express and draw attention to some issue they feel or indirectly glimpse, and suddenly and briefly made sense in a moment of clarity. The sense was true and always there, they just can't quite pinpoint it, express it, or make a conclusion of it, nor frame it into a version that makes universal sense for everyone. I've seen quite a lot of ppl and examples of this. Devs are people too, they are not immune. Be nice to each other. How you behave to anyone at any arbitrary moment does betray little details (like I said, I am good enough at this, as necessity ... sigh, if I really try) of your qualities, what kind of person you are, how you think and what you feel and whether you are worthy of any amount of trust and expectation. 


Extra: Games are a personal, romantic thing. Much can be said here.

- I'll give one point here. Games are alternative personality players engage in every time they game. There could be reasons why they'd want to do something like this which is potentially meaningless. What kind of experience players desire in can be explained by one point which states art is about the ridiculous and out-of-place things in real life. Naked brutality of force. Injustive. Extremities. There is both good art and bad art, but it is still art. But back to point, players engaging in a completely fantasy world, in tandem and in mutual concensus, for something potentially relatively completely meaningless, is in itself an extremity and outrageous thing. Art is sacred. By far extension, the act of gaming itself is sacred, and should be treated as such. Devs should hold their job, as ideally any job, as sacred. This all adds up to how games should be created with the respect and care it warrants and deserves, like any other respectable crafts. 

- So what kind of game players like? Why doesn't commercial push-based endeavors just work, even with good products? Because this is what games are. An artistic, qualitative, romantic thing. Games can never substitute a player's personality, no that would be outright madness. But they are alternative personalities players engage in, as substitute for things impossible in real life, as something outrageous to ritualistically compensate for whatever reason (religion counts too) they want to and need to. 

- So what kind of game would make a player want to devote themselves (or an image of themselves) into, to see how it would look like on the other side, and become a part of them in reverse? The kind of meaningful, carefully and dutifully created, game with a soul. A game about something final, dire, yearning, outrageous, beautiful, uniquely singular, and romantic. That is the kind of thing that propaganda also uses, but the point is, it facilitates immediate and dedicated 'action'. Because it generates dire, final worldviews on which 'trust' is immediately established and ordered to action. So it's about trust. Trust is a powerful thing. Will. Belief. Euphoria. Passion. etc. Good, active things to have in a game, amongst more, and not by chance. Because it makes sense behind it.

- So games are about creating an alluring setting for an alternative personality of the player. Now, would players want to engage in a little personal hell that involves grinding ships over and over again with little meaningful lore, to meaninglessly to tedious and mediocre combat again and again in a semi-toxic setting, to hurt others with aggression and toxicity in a nearly zero-sum game and depressing economy and progression system, and even risk tainting, bring in, substituting with lesser or even negative variations of their soul, memories, personality, perceptions and knowledge, even just a bit, the parts with memory, knowledge, and respect for the actual historical lore this game claims to base itself upon, but which mostly neglects and only mentions almost as a side note, such that time and resources are wasted? NO. NO. NO. NO. NO.

- Note that best practice on how to make a player spend money can be achieved with much less complexity, such as appealing to their lesser and darker parts of e.g. "p2w nao". Ofc generally good games can still received money, in fact there are many ways to do this. But which practice is better? Well, one is certainly easier, but I direly hope the developers at least believe one is not necessarily better than the other, even if for practical reasons they have to act as if one is. I hope they also know not all developers "act" this way. Perhaps I may be biased because my salary is not based on a game I'm making which needs to bring in a lot of money, in short. But meh. Already said too much.



If I wrote this in a normal way instead of in bullet-points it would've been a ludicrously long post. I sorta know better by now.

- But it is still sorta long. Er, scratch that. It is completely out of hand. Again.

Anyways I just want to wish the devs and players good luck, good job regardless of outcome, be brave and keep improving WoWs, and to not let down this incredible opportunity to make the game better.

- You know I could've spouted a lot of pseudo-philosophical stuff here too but I withheld myself. I'll stop here for now.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
1,232 posts
28,507 battles

Some good ideas, some bad - but unfortunately overly complicated for the WoWs player base = less potential profit = not going to happen.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
170 posts
7,460 battles

This tipic is like this truck kun..

I feel like someone lost at least a day thinking and writing it, i feel bad.

  • Cool 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
14,560 posts
20,714 battles

Far too complicated for the average player. BB Kevin needs to be able to play CVs, so the rework will be done accordingly.

With such a rework you'd be catering to an entirely different target audience than WG. Not bad per se but it also means they'll never take your points under consideration.

  • Cool 3

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
793 posts
2,077 battles

Just for information, is there any more realistic navel game out there that is not made by gajin or EA? I would say that your ideas probably won’t fit here, but war thunder navel ops it might if it was not run by gajin of all company.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
10,488 posts
7,315 battles
28 minutes ago, howardxu_23 said:

Just for information, is there any more realistic navel game out there that is not made by gajin or EA? I would say that your ideas probably won’t fit here, but war thunder navel ops it might if it was not run by gajin of all company.


You mean Motor Torpedo boats? They grew up to C-Class Cruisers in the meantime though so it might only take 8 more years to grow up to a Mogami class size. 

  • Funny 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
793 posts
2,077 battles
16 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:


You mean Motor Torpedo boats? They grew up to C-Class Cruisers in the meantime though so it might only take 8 more years to grow up to a Mogami class size. 

Don’t forget the dakka barge. Knowing gajin, they probably implement selventa and somehow it will be made from stalinium.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this