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

I like the idea of having actual ship stats in port

15 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[RNSF]
Players
46 posts
15,511 battles

Since they gave us the new Designer's Table port design, I've been thinking it would be really nice to be able to view the basic statistics of each ship by adding a new category on the right hand side of the port screen. For example, just above where it currently shows Armour Layout, Survivability, Artillery, Torpedoes, AA Defense, Maneuverablity & Concealment etc. Once clicked on it would show basic ship stats like this maybe:

 

Displacement - 12,190 tons

Length - 184m

Beam - 18m

Deck Height (above waterline) - 7.41m

Draught - 5.26m

Crew - 786 

 

I can't imagine it would be that hard to do and would not only be interesting for players that take an interest in the real history of the ships they own, but also be useful for playing the game to know exactly the size differences between all the ships etc. I just wondered what anyone else thought of this idea and if it gets enough interest then maybe one day WG might implement it in an upcoming patch ;)  

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTTX]
[TTTX]
Players
4,608 posts
8,081 battles

couple of (relatively minor, admittedly) problems I see with that...

  • it'd immediately get brigades of shipnerds up in arms and pitchforks flailing over every single kilogram and centimeter that they might perceive as "wrong" in that data
  • a good chunk of the ships in game were never even built, especially not in the precise configurations we see ingame (Gneisenau as just one example off the top of my head), so good luck getting those numbers "right"...
  • and on top of that, those numbers (especially displacement but in some cases also the dimensions) change quite a bit when you change the config of your ship (as in, switch from A hull to B hull and the like)... I mean, you're not gonna slap on massive numbers of AA barrels, or for things like Clemson or Omaha radically alter the amount of armament you have, without affecting weight
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RNSF]
Players
46 posts
15,511 battles
9 minutes ago, Tyrendian89 said:

couple of (relatively minor, admittedly) problems I see with that...

  • it'd immediately get brigades of shipnerds up in arms and pitchforks flailing over every single kilogram and centimeter that they might perceive as "wrong" in that data
  • a good chunk of the ships in game were never even built, especially not in the precise configurations we see ingame (Gneisenau as just one example off the top of my head), so good luck getting those numbers "right"...
  • and on top of that, those numbers (especially displacement but in some cases also the dimensions) change quite a bit when you change the config of your ship (as in, switch from A hull to B hull and the like)... I mean, you're not gonna slap on massive numbers of AA barrels, or for things like Clemson or Omaha radically alter the amount of armament you have, without affecting weight

Points taken. But even length and beam, scaled to the dimensions of the ships WG have modeled and used in game, would help give more of an idea of the size differences between certain ships. As atm, it's pretty hard to tell at a glance which ships of the same class are bigger than others without taking them to a Training Room and sailing them next to each other etc. Unless I've missed something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTTX]
[TTTX]
Players
4,608 posts
8,081 battles
1 minute ago, Madagaza said:

Points taken. But even length and beam, scaled to the dimensions of the ships WG have modeled and used in game, would help give more of an idea of the size differences between certain ships. As atm, it's pretty hard to tell at a glance which ships of the same class are bigger than others without taking them to a Training Room and sailing them next to each other etc. Unless I've missed something?

ye, and they could always use the classic "trick" of going "Displacement: Around 13000 tons" as opposed to "precise" numbers that are never going to be entirely correct anyway, especially on American Russian ships where you just have to expect the crew is going to smuggle a few metric tons of Hamburgers thousand liters of Vodka on board as emergency survival rations :Smile_trollface:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
1,884 posts
3,701 battles
55 minutes ago, Madagaza said:

Since they gave us the new Designer's Table port design, I've been thinking it would be really nice to be able to view the basic statistics of each ship by adding a new category on the right hand side of the port screen. For example, just above where it currently shows Armour Layout, Survivability, Artillery, Torpedoes, AA Defense, Maneuverablity & Concealment etc. Once clicked on it would show basic ship stats like this maybe:

 

Displacement - 12,190 tons

Length - 184m

Beam - 18m

Deck Height (above waterline) - 7.41m

Draught - 5.26m

Crew - 786 

 

I can't imagine it would be that hard to do and would not only be interesting for players that take an interest in the real history of the ships they own, but also be useful for playing the game to know exactly the size differences between all the ships etc. I just wondered what anyone else thought of this idea and if it gets enough interest then maybe one day WG might implement it in an upcoming patch ;)  

Just add a link to wikipedia for each ship. Everything we need is there, plus the ships history.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RNSF]
Players
46 posts
15,511 battles

But we've just established that the ships in game are often waaaay different than historical ships and many didn't even exist at all. So having a wikipedia link wouldn't really help much.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
642 posts
9,877 battles
1 hour ago, Fat_Maniac said:

Just add a link to wikipedia for each ship.

It's generally bad (design) practice for a game to send its players out of the game to do something "for any reason"... so expect its inclusion very soon.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RNSF]
Players
46 posts
15,511 battles
8 minutes ago, RigorMortis76 said:

Since it adds nothing to gameplay i would be dissapointed if WG allocates resources to this.

I imagine it would take a lot less resources than most of the fluff they put out that adds absolutely zero to the game play. I still think a lot of players would look at it and it would be nice to know which i the skinniest ship, or the size order of all DDs in game etc etc etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
1,884 posts
3,701 battles
58 minutes ago, Starchy_Tuber said:

It's generally bad (design) practice for a game to send its players out of the game to do something "for any reason"... so expect its inclusion very soon.

Thing is wiki would say RU BB's are NOT stronk ships, and glorious Soviet navy is not best in world.

 

They wouldn't be able to handle the truth 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
18,781 posts
6,105 battles
17 minutes ago, Fat_Maniac said:

Thing is wiki would say RU BB's are NOT stronk ships, and glorious Soviet navy is not best in world.

 

They wouldn't be able to handle the truth 

 

You think WG would link to any wiki but their own ey :Smile_hiding:

 

Anyway, I don't need all the data but just having beam + length. Hitpoints already depict intended tonnage ( kinda.. roughly... ). With tonnage, beam and length it would be good!

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BOATX]
Beta Tester
5,170 posts
23,679 battles

Nah, devs are still busy with the failed CV rework for the next 4-5 years.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
1,884 posts
3,701 battles
1 hour ago, 22cm said:

Nah, devs are still busy with the failed CV rework for the next 4-5 years.

You forgot to add subs to that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×