Historical Accuracy vs. Complete Tech Trees

[Atankean]

Greetings Captains,

 

as the Title suggests, I decided to make a Poll to find out how many players are "hardcore historics".

 

The reason for that is the latest addition to the game, the Russian BB Line and the inevitable flaring up of one of our favorite all time discussions, the so called "Paper Ships" (not to be confused with the other definition of "Paper Ship" which means a Ship without or with very little Armor :) ).

 

I am quite curious now, I mean the Russian BBs are certainly not the first Ships to be introduced into the game that were never built let alone commissioned. Some famous examples are the Grosser Kurfürst (apart from Paper it existed only in the wet dreams of the Fuhrer), the Montana (the US realized they could deliver "Freedom" more efficiently with CVs) and the Zao (hard to build more ships when you run out of fuel for the existing ones) and there are many many more (including Premiums).

 

So a simple question formed up in my head. Would you be ready and willing to "sacrifice" completely tiered Tech Trees and a substantial number of ships to see a WoWS with only ships that have been built and commissioned?

 

Just so we are clear what I am asking here. Such a change (which will thankfully never happen) would mean that the german BB Line stops at Tier 8.

 

Right now, the US is the only Nation that can nearly fill out all types of ships in the Tech Tree (apart from BBs which would stop at T9 with the Iowa). Every other Nation would have to make more or less severe cuts.

 

Some Background including my own opinion on the matter (if you are interested):

 

I found it always odd how strictly some players "demanded" historical "accuracy". Now I have quite a good portion of understanding for them, I am somewhat a big "fan" of Warships and I am also more thrilled by ships that actually have existed then by ships that were only theoretically conceptioned. 

 

However, I always try to adjust my expectations to certain realities. That means, if there was a game about Warships in the second World War Era that called itself "Realistic Warships Simulator" and is even marketed as such for example, then I would fully go on "Historical Accuracy demanding mode". I would never accept any paper designs in such a game, Hell I would not even accept ships from WW1 Era, who never saw action in WW2 in such a game. Having said that, if I find myself in a game that is as clearly Arcade as WoWS I would feel that demanding "Full Scale" Historical Accuracy is like shooting fish in a barrel with Yamatos 460 mm Guns. Just waaaaaaay too much to expect from such a game.

 

That does not mean that I would just let them get away with anything, not at all but as I said, I would ADJUST my expectations. An adjustment in this case would be like this:

 

"So you cant fill out a Tech Tree because said Nation did not have the ships for it? allright, no problem you can use Paper Designs as long as you make sure these designs are feasible and fit the overall Frame."

 

What does feasible mean? Well for better understanding I will use an Extreme example. Lets say Wargaming decided to introduce an actual Imperial Star Destroyer (yes those things from Star Wars) into the game (and not as an April Fools mind you, lets say its the T10 Russian CV :) ), then I would, "respectfully", point out that such a design does not fit the Theme of the game and it can not be expected that the Russians at any time during the Second World War would have been capable of building and fielding such a Vehicle no matter how much Vodka and Gulag Power they possessed.

 

The reason why I can accept the Russian BBs is because I believe if circumstances were different and the Russians would have prioritized Naval Warfare instead of Land Warfare (which they had to naturally since they mainly fought the Germans on Land) then I am pretty sure they could have build such Battleships or at least BBs that came close to those in the game (except the Gulag powered Turret Traverse but thats a minor "sin" I am ready to forgive in the sake of game balance). The Russians have proven to be incredibly industrious despite the heavy Invasion they were suffering, just look at the Tanks they churned out, so its not that far fetched to believe they were capable to build such ships.

 

That is enough for me, I can live with that in an Arcade Game. If you cant, I would love to hear why not. Why is it so difficult for you to accept Paper designs in a game that is obviously as far from a realistic Simulation as you can get?

 

Have a nice day!

 

P.S. Its my first Poll so if I made mistakes I'm sorry!

 

P.P.S I did make a mistake and wrongly referred to the "Shimakaze" as a Paper Design which she certainly was not. I corrected the Poll answers by removing her from the first option. Thanks for pointing it out.

[Allied_Winter]

4 minutes ago, Atankean said:

Right now, the US is the only Nation that can nearly fill out all types of ships in the Tech Tree (apart from BBs which would stop at T9 with the Iowa).

Nope it wouldn't.

 

Afaik there are only TWO lines in the entire game that consist solely of existing ships:

 

- USN CVs (even prior to the rework)

- IJN DDs Shima line

 

All other lines (even the US DDs and USN cruisers) have some non exisiting ships (e.g. USS Phoenix was only a paper designed that was built as improved USS Omaha).

 

Overall, I don't care about if a ship is real or not. Many ships is what I'm looking for. I don't need complete tech trees. Nor real ones. So I vote: 'Don't care' (as long as my presupposition is not tampered with)

[Norris_of_Quirm]

Realistically, a huge chunk of the ships in game are not 100% historical in one way or another; this is probably just as well, as the loss of all the made-up stuff would make the game a lot less interesting.

 

I would prefer it if real ships were prioritised before fictitious ones e.g. we should have got a full tree of Italians before the Russian BBs were even thought of, but commercial realities will always interfere.

 

The Russian BBs are (in my view) quite an interesting thought experiment; my only real objection to them is WG trying to extrapolate a glorious Soviet naval tradition where none existed. My only "hells, no!" would be utterly fictitious stuff i.e. a WOWS equivalent to Nameless, Van Helsing, Tankenstein etc. in WOT Blitz. Plausible stuff, I can live with.

[Beastofwar]

If they actually designed the ship - thousands of man hours of work for engineers and technical drawers - and in many cases even layed the keel of the ship or started or planned a conversion of an existing ship or hull i think having the ship in game is totally acceptable and even very interesting to see what it would have be able to do as far as the game mechanics allow.

 

As for the Russian ships....it makes complete sense with the continous wars with Japan to have plans to copy features of the most powerful ships in existence of the nations that arguably could stand up to Japan at the time.

 

Complete fantasy ships...not in favour of those. I do hate the fantasy skins and appearances too, have them disabled.

[CptBarney]

I dont mind too be honest as long as they are not overpowered, or render other ships pointless and obsolete.

 

Or detract too much from the game although we have an option to disable that.

 

Still waiting for italian cruisers, bb's, dd's and cv's (dont care if they have to make stuff up to fill the trees just make the bloody ships consistent but also adding in some unique feature along the way)

[Fat_Maniac]

As Commander of a clan dedicated to history, I have to say paper designs are ok, if there is no real world ship to take a spot. I'd rather have full tech trees.

 

However what does grate is when WG come out with statements proclaiming that if the RU BB's had been built they would have been the greatest BB's ever.

[MrFingers]

I, from the same clan, have little to no issues with paper designs as long as they have a footing in history (Lion for example, or Izmail, or Lyon, or Minotaur), even the occasional fictitious WG-creation if it means a line can come to a closure (Conquer-error)... What I do have issues with is having mainly paper lines filled with a lot of WG fantasies implemented with a lot of fanfare and misplaced hype at the cost of a real line of another nation. Yes, I'm looking at the Russian/Soviet lines in favour of the Italians and other European nations. I understand it has to do with access to blueprints and archives, but still...

[fumtu]

44 minutes ago, Atankean said:

So a simple question formed up in my head. Would you be ready and willing to "sacrifice" completely tiered Tech Trees and a substantial number of ships to see a WoWS with only ships that have been built and commissioned?

 

What about ships that were in process of building but never finished? Technically they existed but not really. Ships like Izmail Soyuz, Kiev or Lion. Or ships that were converted during the building into something else like Ibuki?

 

I don't mind paper ships as there will be very limited content without them. I don't see much problem with this. I think ship on T9 should be a top tier tho, Iowa as top tier US, Lion as top tier RN and Soyuz as top tier Soviet BB. But that is just my opinion and anyway even then I wouldn't mind some paper ship.

 

37 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

Afaik there are only TWO lines in the entire game that consist solely of existing ships:

 

- USN CVs (even prior to the rework)

- IJN DDs Shima line

 

RN CV line is composed of all real ships just like RN DD line with one small exception, Jutland A hull is real, B hull is not.

[Atankean]

Instead of quoting a specific post I would like to give my general opinion on one of the more popular topics.

 

I am of course talking about the Italian Ships and their absence so far.

 

I can hardly disagree with those who wish the Italian Navy would have been introduced way before lines that consist mostly of Paper Designs. Italian Navy might not have as many ships as the US or Japan (which were the main players when it came to naval warfare in WWII after all) but they certainly have enough to justify their inclusion by now. I am also a little sad to see them being ignored for so long.

 

In an ideal world, we would see the introduction of Ship Lines from "Top to Bottom". In this case "Top" means Nations that were major players and/or had sizeable Naval Assets. WG started very good in that regard. The US and Japan were the most logical choices for first Nations (sorry UK fans, I know England is a country known worldwide for its great Navy but by the time of WWII things have changed considerably and while UK was mainly trying not to get invaded by Germany and later mostly concentrated on a combination of Land and Air Warfare, the US and Japan fought mainly on the Pacific and had to cover all kinds of Naval Vessels. They were by all means the major players of Naval Warfare in WWII).

 

My logical choice after that would definitely been UK but if I remember correctly WG would go a different route.

 

However, as Norris_of_Quirm has pointed out correctly, there are unfortunately some commercial realities that probably interfered. One such reality is that WG still has a majority of its playerbase in Russia and therefore have to prioritize their demands at some point or the other. In fact, I am glad they did not start with fully fledged Russian Tech Trees first. To be honest though, when I see how many players are asking for Italian Lines, I wonder if those commercial priorities are really set correctly or not.

 

Maybe its a "late game" strategy, you know, wait for a moment when the game looses popularity and then introduce the Italians to gain a "Second Wind" effect. At this point, your guess is as good as mine.

 

I am not happy with it and I sure would have preferred any italian line before Russian BBs but since I dont know all the deciding factors that WG considers, I try not to read too much into it.

 

We will get the Italians eventually, of that there is no doubt.

[Atankean]

1 minute ago, fumtu said:

What about ships that were in process of building but never finished? Technically they existed but not really. Ships like Izmail Soyuz, Kiev or Lion. Or ships that were converted during the building into something else like Ibuki?

Well, as I said, build AND commissioned, so ships that were laid down but never finished would not be included. If a ship was build, commissioned and after that converted into something else, that would be ok.

[veslingr]

it is small amount of votes, but i think it is clear that peoples likes full trees. It would get boring fast if we would only have ships that actually touched water. 

[Atankean]

51 minutes ago, Fat_Maniac said:

However what does grate is when WG come out with statements proclaiming that if the RU BB's had been built they would have been the greatest BB's ever.

Did they really say that? "My non-existing ships are the greatest in the world?". 

 

If they did, here is my msg to WG. "Dear WG, there is more to shipbuilding then designs on paper. Many ships that looked good on paper had to be severely modified to meet the demands of REALITY.  That is IF they ever got build like they were drawn on paper. Many times Ship designers said "Yes this will work" and Engineers said "less Vodka Comrade".

 

If I were a Psychiatrist, I would subscribe a healthy dose of humility and realism.

 

P.S. I am willing to accept Paper Designs in the game but I am certainly not willing to accept statements like these

[HaachamaShipping]

1 hour ago, Atankean said:

The reason for that is the latest addition to the game, the Russian BB Line and the inevitable flaring up of one of our favorite all time discussions, the so called "Paper Ships" (not to be confused with the other definition of "Paper Ship" which means a Ship without or with very little Armor :) ).

If the poll atm is any indicator, one person actually is unhappy with the status quo of blueprint ships existing and I would not say that qualifies for "favourite all time discussion".

[Atankean]

2 minutes ago, Cagliostro_chan said:

If the poll atm is any indicator, one person actually is unhappy with the status quo of blueprint ships existing and I would not say that qualifies for "favourite all time discussion".

You are right and that confuses me too. Looking at some other threads, there are much more players who speak up against paper designs. 

 

I guess when shite hits the fan, people suddenly think clearer :)?

 

P.S. Not enough votes in yet though. We have 28 players voted, thats hardly representative of all the community but I know what you mean

[HaachamaShipping]

3 minutes ago, Atankean said:

You are right and that confuses me too. Looking at some other threads, there are much more players who speak up against paper designs. 

 

I guess when shite hits the fan, people suddenly think clearer :)?

 

P.S. Not enough votes in yet though. We have 28 players voted, thats hardly representative of all the community but I know what you mean

People hate two things:

• Paper designs taking precedence over actual designs that got realised. Be that in the form of stuff like RU BBs (a line with 1 ship that actually was commissioned) taking precedence over Italian anything or WG choosing designs like fantasy refit Normandie over actually built ships like Strassbourg (not made better by the insane speed Normandie gets that is totally unrealistic).
• Paper designs being too powerful for no reason. Slava for example is a ship that noone ever heard of, that has totally outlandish accuracy not founded in any real basis and potentially trashes high tier meta.

Hardly anyone cares about stuff like Montana, Zao or Z-52 existing, especially with stuff like Montana having well-documented blueprints and being quite unambigious in its innovations over successful predecessors (whereas Slava basically is based on god knows what vodka-fueled excesses, because no real Russian BB gun ever achieved a performance that justifies this).

[thiextar]

Gameplay always take priority over realism. As long as the ships released are balanced and not too toxic to the meta, im happy.

[Gvozdika]

You make the erroneous assumption that all fictitious ships are equal in their distance from reality. 

 

The Graf Zeppelin was never launched or deployed in it's intended form, yet few people would have an issue with it being considered for inclusion in WOWs. It was started, it was designed and developed to the point that it *could* have seen use in WW2 had priorities not changed.  Even the Sovietskii Soyuz was laid down (albeit as a vanity project that was correctly ended to free up resources for meaningful production). 

 

Stuff like the HMS Minotaur or Lion is the next stage on - not built - a proposed design by people who had built similar ships, by a nation that actually built and fielded the technology that would go into the design. Highly likely it would have gone on to construction. Had the war gone on - it *could* have been built. Montana falls into the same bracket. Uses known weaponry that saw use in other vessels and thus the performance can be fairly extrapolated.

 

Then we hit the majority of the RU BBs. Where does one start? 

 

Russia's navy and naval industry is quite frankly a comical fourth-rate laughing stock in the pre WW1 period. It doesn't get much better in the WW1 period. It gets gutted lower by the purges of the inter-war period. It is pushed into a historical footnote by the realities of WW2. This was a nation that could not field a modern high-tonnage vessel if it tried prior to the 60s - the one semi-decent BC loaned to them in WW2 was buggered beyond use by the time they gave it back. They lacked the expertise in naval gun technology, armour plate, fire control, propulsion, training of the crews to man such vessels, training of the officer corps (what was left of them) to lead them. The Swiss Navy was probably more likely to actually create a working BB design. 

 

Crumbs, I can doodle down a design for a ship that looks brilliant with fantastical gun performance and magical armour properties. Anyone can. Of every major combatant in WW2 the Russian Navy was probably the least able to actually fulfil the wonderful ideas they dreamed up. THOSE are the fictitious ships that I and other have an issue with, especially when they are shoehorned in ahead of ships that actually existed and fought.

 

It's like creating a car racing game and adding Lada concept cars ahead of historic Ferraris to the line-up. 'Whaddya mean you no agree with Lada Riva Sport being faster than Ferrari Enzo?'

 

 

 

 

[Atankean]

8 minutes ago, Cagliostro_chan said:

Paper designs taking precedence over actual designs that got realised. Be that in the form of stuff like RU BBs (a line with 1 ship that actually was commissioned) taking precedence over Italian anything or WG choosing designs like fantasy refit Normandie over actually built ships like Strassbourg (not made better by the insane speed Normandie gets that is totally unrealistic).

Totally agree with you there. If real build and commissioned ships exist then these should always have priority. I allready said my piece about Italian ships in one of my former posts. Concerning the speed of Normandie, well thats a "grey area" to be honest. I guess this was a "sacrifice to the god of game balance" if you so will. Hard to evaluate if going that road down was really necessary and since we have bigger fish to fry (again italian navy) I dont want to go too much into it.

 

11 minutes ago, Cagliostro_chan said:

Paper designs being too powerful for no reason. Slava for example is a ship that noone ever heard of, that has totally outlandish accuracy not founded in any real basis and potentially trashes high tier meta.

You mean the Pobeda I assume (well thats its name for the time being at least). I have only seen Supertesters play that ship but from what I have seen so far I must say that WG is smoking some heavy stuff together with their Vodka. That ship is straight up bull. I understand the concept of BBs getting more accurate when they get closer but a BB that gets more accurate the farther it is? that is ...I dont know what that is. I dont like what I have seen so far from Pobeda/Slava and I hope they come to their senses.

[VonBroich]

 

1 hour ago, Allied_Winter said:

Afaik there are only TWO lines in the entire game that consist solely of existing ships: 

 

RN dd's are also a full line. As well as the two RN released premium ships

[Atankean]

5 minutes ago, Gvozdika said:

You make the erroneous assumption that all fictitious ships are equal in their distance from reality. 

I did not want to go into too much detail. I utilize the "K.I.S.S" principle (Keep it simple stupid).

 

Also, I just took a shortcut and laid out one of the strictest historical accuracy claims I could find and that was ships build and commissioned.

 

I am fully aware that there were quite some degrees of ship conception. Laid down never finished, finished never sailed, never saw action etc. etc. but that would be too much for a simple Poll.

 

I hope you understand

[Gvozdika]

1 minute ago, Atankean said:

I did not want to go into too much detail. I utilize the "K.I.S.S" principle (Keep it simple stupid).

 

Also, I just took a shortcut and laid out one of the strictest historical accuracy claims I could find and that was ships build and commissioned.

 

I am fully aware that there were quite some degrees of ship conception. Laid down never finished, finished never sailed, never saw action etc. etc. but that would be too much for a simple Poll.

 

I hope you understand

Which is fine and understood. I haven't voted because I fall between the two options - some paper designs are okay in my book and understandable. Others less so (as per the rant above).

 

[Atankean]

5 minutes ago, VonBroich said:

RN dd's are also a full line. As well as the two RN released premium ships

I'll be totally honest with you, I was not willing to go through all the work required to find out which lines would be impacted in which way. So I kept it simple.

 

It is common knowledge that the US had commissioned an insane amount of ships over the course of WWII (and beyond, they are called World Power for a Reason) so I naturally consider them to be most able to fill Tech Trees. That does not mean that other nations cannot do the same but some will have to make more compromises then others.

 

If somebody is willing and able, he can go through all the tech trees and eliminate all ships that were not build and commissioned but I will certainly not do that since I think thats unnecessary for the general point of this Poll.

[Atankean]

12 minutes ago, Gvozdika said:

Which is fine and understood. I haven't voted because I fall between the two options - some paper designs are okay in my book and understandable. Others less so (as per the rant above).

Maybe I could have implemented a fourth option saying something like "some I like some I dont" but I did not want to complicate things tbh.

 

However, I understand your position, some ships really stretch the "imagination" and the barriers of "feasibility".

 

One of my current "candidates" for the "wtf" effect is the upcoming French Cruiser "Colbert". Its a cruiser that was commissioned 1959 which is waaay into Cold War Era and the design of the ship far more resembles the design of modern ships then those of WWII. That bothers me a little because in a game where the highest Tier ends with WWII ships, putting in a ship from the cold war Era at or below this Tier seems "off" to me.

 

Dont get me wrong, I like this ship and it looks really sexy but as I said, it stretches the game concept "a little".

 

P.S. I would not mind if they include it as a T11 Cruiser for example if that ever was a thing. Or other Cold War Designs, just not below T10, that bothers me a little.

[Hedgehog1963]

I really don't mind having ships that were never built in the game.  I can't see the game working otherwise.

[Hedgehog1963]

18 minutes ago, VonBroich said:

 

 

RN dd's are also a full line. As well as the two RN released premium ships

 

There are more than two RN Premiums and three of them are DDs.