Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
pzkpfwv1d

Royal Navy is being discriminated against by WG

148 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[WCWVE]
Players
925 posts
14,970 battles

The Royal Navy built the most dreadnought class ships by a long way comapred to any of the other major naval powers of the early 20th Century and yet there are comparatively few Royal Navy ships in the game

 

Japan - 14 battleships and battlecruisers built but 20 in game = 142%

USA - 35 battleships and large cruisers built - 20 in game = 60%

USSR - 6 battleships and battlecruisers built - 15 in game = 250%

Germany - 29 battleships and battlecruisers built - 13 in game currently (rumours of Siegfried) = 45%

Italy - 10 battleships built - 2 in game currently (Italian lines will be introduced) - 20%

Royal Navy - 60 battleships, battlecruisers and large cruisers built - 15 in game = 25%

 

  • Cool 9
  • Funny 6
  • Boring 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
20,487 posts
12,546 battles

So you think the game and WG were better off if they added Superb, Temeraire, St Vincent, Collingwood, Collossus, Hercules and used the names of Monarch, Conqueror and Thunderer to add the Orion sisters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Beta Tester
256 posts
5,138 battles
7 minutes ago, pzkpfwv1d said:

The Royal Navy built the most dreadnought class ships by a long way comapred to any of the other major naval powers of the early 20th Century and yet there are comparatively few Royal Navy ships in the game

 

Japan - 14 battleships and battlecruisers built but 20 in game = 142%

USA - 35 battleships and large cruisers built - 20 in game = 60%

USSR - 6 battleships and battlecruisers built - 15 in game = 250%

Germany - 29 battleships and battlecruisers built - 13 in game currently (rumours of Siegfried) = 45%

Italy - 10 battleships built - 2 in game currently (Italian lines will be introduced) - 20%

Royal Navy - 60 battleships, battlecruisers and large cruisers built - 15 in game = 25%

 

So have you included the ships of a certain class or is this just the whole number of ships built? We don't need 6 identical cruisers with a slight difference in AA....

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SM0KE]
Players
3,576 posts
9,222 battles

Presumably, this is good old pragmatic maximising return from the customer base (insert ye olde traditional joke about beer + ladies-of-negotiable-affection not buying themselves) i.e. there are fewer Brits/Anglophiles playing the game - and buying ships - than other groups...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CAIN]
Players
3,417 posts
12,634 battles
15 minutes ago, Verblonde said:

Presumably, this is good old pragmatic maximising return from the customer base (insert ye olde traditional joke about beer + ladies-of-negotiable-affection not buying themselves) i.e. there are fewer Brits/Anglophiles playing the game - and buying ships - than other groups...

Are brits even allowed to play the game with the whole self-exiling...uhm...i mean Brexiting going on? :Smile_hiding:

  • Funny 10
  • Boring 4
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,049 posts
37 minutes ago, pzkpfwv1d said:

The Royal Navy built the most dreadnought class ships by a long way comapred to any of the other major naval powers of the early 20th Century and yet there are comparatively few Royal Navy ships in the game

 

Japan - 14 battleships and battlecruisers built but 20 in game = 142%

USA - 35 battleships and large cruisers built - 20 in game = 60%

USSR - 6 battleships and battlecruisers built - 15 in game = 250%

Germany - 29 battleships and battlecruisers built - 13 in game currently (rumours of Siegfried) = 45%

Italy - 10 battleships built - 2 in game currently (Italian lines will be introduced) - 20%

Royal Navy - 60 battleships, battlecruisers and large cruisers built - 15 in game = 25%

 

@pzkpfwv1d

 

There is a new line of British Cruisers coming out " early " Next year 2020,  with at least 1 premium ship, so around another 11 ships for the British line, making it one of the largest representations in World of Warships.

 

I hope this will address your incorrect discrimination fears, and that you enjoy the new line.

 

Regards

 

o7

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                            

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KOKOS]
Players
141 posts
3,841 battles

I think the Royal Navy is underrepresented in WoWs, because the other nations you listed generate more interest and by that, more sales for WG.

 

  • USN: Those guys fought a lot of huge and important naval battles in the Pacific, so in a game about warships, they are interesting by default.
  • IJN: Same as USN, plus Japan fanboys.
  • USSR: Many Russian players get many Russian ships to earn WG many Russian Rubles.
  • Kriegsmarine: Should actually be on the same level of interest as the Royal Navy or even lower, going by the influence it had on the war (especially without subs), but has many fanboys all around the world, which elevates it a great deal.
  • Italy: It's only 2 ships - they have to fill that techtree somehow, the percentage of 20 % is pretty unimportant at this stage, IMHO.
  • Royal Navy: Well known and admired in the UK, but doesn't have the fanboy-bonus of Japan or Germany, nor the same historic importance as the USN, in the time frame the game takes place.

 

This puts the RN in a situation, where it's not terribly attractive to players outside the UK, when compared to most other nations.

I am sure that globally, many more players join this game thinking: "Yay, I can drive a Bismarck and a Yamato and a Midway!", rather than "Oh cool, a King George V!"

 

That said, I would love to get more RN ships, but before they introduce more BBs, I would like to see a Tier 8 premium CA (probably incoming shortly), and a Tier 8 premium BB that is not the Vanguard. ;)

  • Cool 5
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,848 posts

The oddest thing is that the one navy with the most history feels to be the most neglected. Since the Royal Navy and the US Navy were considered to have parity in the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty (which the Japanese considered insulting to their navy BTW), given the rough period WoWS more or less covers, they should be pretty much treated identically in terms of ships etc. There seems to be relatively few US paper ships. However, as been pointed out earlier on this forum, WG uses a disproportionate number of paper designs for the British tech tree while leaving out ships that existed in real life...

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AMOK]
Players
1,607 posts
7,521 battles

Since Britain is leaving our Community, I cannot promise any support for this cause.

 

Farewell.

 

:Smile_veryhappy:

  • Funny 2
  • Boring 3
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WCWVE]
Players
925 posts
14,970 battles

What I am saying is that WG seem to be ignoring ships such as the Erin, Agincourt, Repulse/Renown (after rebuild they were different), Splendid Cats (could use Queen Mary as a name here), Courageous/Glorious (as built, before conversion to CV and als as the CV variant), Tiger, Royal Soveriegn's, this would even up the disparity 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,892 posts
10,263 battles

The Royal Navy tech tree started out with 0 branches 3 years ago, and now has 4 complete branches, with a large amount of premiums and a secondary branch for cruisers on it's way for the end of the year... 

 

Discriminated against? 

It's going to have as many branches as the USN and IJN trees, within a few months, despite the latter being 3 years older. 

 

Cry some more. 

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
20,487 posts
12,546 battles
1 minute ago, pzkpfwv1d said:

What I am saying is that WG seem to be ignoring ships such as the Erin, Agincourt, Repulse/Renown (after rebuild they were different), Splendid Cats (could use Queen Mary as a name here), Courageous/Glorious (as built, before conversion to CV and als as the CV variant), Tiger, Royal Soveriegn's, this would even up the disparity 

Why do you think that they are ignoring them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,049 posts
1 minute ago, genosse said:

I think the Royal Navy is underrepresented in WoWs, because the other nations you listed generate more interest and by that, more sales for WG.

 

  • USN: Those guys fought a lot of huge and important naval battles in the Pacific, so in a game about warships, they are interesting by default.
  • IJN: Same as USN, plus Japan fanboys.
  • USSR: Many Russian players get many Russian ships to earn WG many Russian Rubles.
  • Kriegsmarine: Should be on the same level of interest as the Royal Navy, but has many fanboys all around the world, which elevates it somewhat.
  • Italy: It's only 2 ships - they have to fill that techtree somehow, the percentage of 20 % is pretty unimportant at this stage, IMHO.
  • Royal Navy: Well known and admired in the UK, but doesn't have the fanboy-bonus of Japan or Germany, nor the same historic importance as the USN, in the time frame the game takes place.

This puts the RN in a situation, where it's not terribly attractive to players outside the UK, when compared to most other nations.

I am sure that globally, many more players join this game thinking: "Yay, I can drive a Bismarck and a Yamato and a Midway!", rather than "Oh cool, a King George V!"

 

That said, I would love to get more RN ships, but before they introduce more BBs, I would like to see a Tier 8 premium CA (probably incoming shortly), and a Tier 8 premium BB that is not the Vanguard. ;)

@genosse

 

You make an interesting point re the " fan boy " aspect of the representation which I do feel is correct.

 

Vanguard was as far as I know the last British Battleship to be built with its own history, and in game, I feel the brawling strength when not up-tired is some what missed by players possible because of the above mentioned fan boy aspect, there are plenty of opportunity to increase more " mission " based game play between  historical facts with in the game, however bringing a balanced ship into the game is not a quick nor easy job, to do. I feel Wargaming  actually do a very good job of it.

 

There is also a saying you can not please every one all of the time, It takes time, commitment and a significant amount of work to bring a ship in game.

 

The unsinkable sam theme was a very good attempt to cover 2 Country's with a interesting theme, I have no idea how successful it was/ is.

 

I feel sure Wargaming are on top of the new ships work load.

 

 

  

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,026 posts
11,634 battles
1 hour ago, pzkpfwv1d said:

USA - 35 battleships and large cruisers built

Wut?

From South Carolina to Iowa alone are more than 35.

And what has the Number of Battleships/ -cruisers to do with discrimination?

Very stupid argument sadly is very stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
7,952 posts
5,936 battles
4 minutes ago, pzkpfwv1d said:

What I am saying is that WG seem to be ignoring ships such as the Erin, Agincourt, Repulse/Renown (after rebuild they were different), Splendid Cats (could use Queen Mary as a name here), Courageous/Glorious (as built, before conversion to CV and als as the CV variant), Tiger, Royal Soveriegn's, this would even up the disparity 

 

It‘s more a matter of ignoring the most significant surface combat battle era and shoehorning fantasy into an age of air war.

 

In short WG f**** up the power progression so badly they are in a situation to implement more than 50% fantasy on new stuff. Unless they start implementing dozens of T3-4 ships 

  • Cool 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BOB-R]
Beta Tester
31 posts
980 battles

Ok, I am one of the minority (non UK) who actually (re)started the Wows campaign thinking I will drive King George V and show them ( ok, I actually thought "Duke of York" but at the time I had not studied the tech trees ). The other ones were Ajax, Exeter, Graff Spee (gues why: la Platta Tribal destroyers and then Le Triomphant because reasons. After being introduced to tech trees I had to reevaluate those goals a bit. I became a fan of kriegsmarine (in game, not by superstition) :   T-22 destroyer :dance_turtle: and battleships, those secondaries :)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,049 posts
26 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

It‘s more a matter of ignoring the most significant surface combat battle era and shoehorning fantasy into an age of air war.

 

In short WG f**** up the power progression so badly they are in a situation to implement more than 50% fantasy on new stuff. Unless they start implementing dozens of T3-4 ships 

 

 

@1MajorKoenig as a " must read " respected member of the forum, I understand your comment, the issue with T3 and T4 is the average player does not feel comfortable, if a player " dies " to early the interest factor dwindles some what, I know some one will say " They should get good " the problem is they presumable are in that tier to try and establish there own play style, and to improve there captain skills,  from what I have read it is a very frustrating experience, I played T4 a month ago for a significant time, as I was asked to comment and help ( in discord ) to try and formulate some sort of tactics, against double cv games, for players that had not gone past T5.

 

I found the games counterproductive to a players game economy and moral. At the end my comment was play co-op or play a T4 CV, which is a shame, because like you say T3 T4 is a representation of a golden era of Dreadnoughts with in Warship history.

 

Viribus Unitis could of been a " Boom " ship for game play and Quarter Year profits at T4 unfortunately I suspect there where " worries " on the gun caliber feeding " political balancing issues " 

 

Regards 

 

Mean while back to " On Topic " British representation 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OCTO]
Players
220 posts
6,215 battles
1 hour ago, pzkpfwv1d said:

Royal Navy - 60 battleships, battlecruisers and large cruisers built - 15 in game = 25%

RN have some ugly looking BBs.

I think the designers puke so they abandoned to create more ingame.

 

But in my eyes nothing is more uglier than that T5 Octobrysblala  in terms of BBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WG-EU]
WG Staff, Alpha Tester
4,590 posts
1,365 battles

There are many reasons, why there aren't as many RN ships in the game, compared to other nations. For example:

  • Other nations are in the game for longer
  • We do not release one nation's branches all at once. We rotate through the nations and keep adding more ships to each of them.
  • For some nations it is a lot easier and/or faster to get blueprints, photos or other details necessary for making ships.
    • E.g. if you need a German blueprint, you can literally just request it from the national archives, pay them and you get pretty good quality scans of all kinds of blueprints. That still means you are possibly missing some details, but it is rather easy to get assets from them. Other nations, museums or collectors might not offer that service or require extensive negotiation. Other times it might simply be difficult to digitalize something and takes time and money to do.
  • As already mentioned by some players, some ships simply do not fit into the game too well, as they are too early in the timeline and there is little point in adding mostly lower tier ships or releasing 6 sister ships at once.
    • Will we eventually have them all? Maybe, but there is no point in adding them all at once.

 

Eventually there will be more and more ships in the game and given that we can get enough details on them, likely all known and especially all well-known ships that fit to the game will be playable. Ship modelling and development is very time intensive though. Therefore it will still take many years.

There is no discrimination to any of the nations we have in-game, but it isn't as simple as saying we want to do it. There are likely many more limiting factors, than the ones above, as well as the requirement for lots of money and manpower.


As some players unfortunately try to derail the topic, I am hiding a few spam-posts.

  • Cool 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,634 posts
3,181 battles
58 minutes ago, genosse said:

Royal Navy: Well known and admired in the UK, but doesn't have the fanboy-bonus of Japan or Germany, nor the same historic importance as the USN, in the time frame the game takes place.

I suggest you go and look at the history books.

 

RN operations may not have been as glamorous or make good action movies like other nations but they played a vital role in WW2.

 

 https://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignRoyalNavy.htm

  • Cool 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,049 posts
1 minute ago, VanD4rk said:

RN have some ugly looking BBs.

I think the designers puke so they abandoned to create more ingame.

They are Historical fairly actuate, and a good representation of that countries, engineering solutions, at the time.

 

I agree they are not pretty, but was the " Engineering Solution " the best and did it work ?

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,848 posts
Just now, 631327334013 said:

They are Historical fairly actuate, and a good representation of that countries, engineering solutions, at the time.

 

I agree they are not pretty, but was the " Engineering Solution " the best and did it work ?

 

This would be the 'functional beauty' that engineering brings you. The Italian ships would have also boasted some of that more 'esthetic beauty'.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
991 posts
10,740 battles

It is a business first, a game second. The owners did not think altruistically, how can we entertain the hordes, make them happy? No they thought how can we make a game that makes money, a shitload of money? How can we keep the paypigs happy?

 

The game started off with the USN and IJN. Markets where the game is hardly played, but huge if they had of been. They introduce ships and lines based upon perceived market demand. The RU segment wanted their own "navy". It was of course in history a bit of a disaster, but we got paper, fantasy and never completed strong ships, as well as the early 20th century ones. It makes money.

 

People complained about DDs, they provided radar, and hydro. They complained about CVs, they got a rework. They winged on about submarines, you're getting them. They complained again about CV, thy reworked them again. WG respond to their market.

 

They also have to keep the game fresh, so they will stagger releases of premiums and lines to make the game interesting for longer.

 

All these things are self evident, if you have the wits to see it.

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,049 posts

@Akula971

 

I honestly believe, even in " Wargaming Accounts Department " there is a true passion and commitment to the history for Warships, making it a MMO game helped support this passion.

 

  

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×