Do you like paper ships?

[Major1999]

Do you like paper ships (ships wich were never keel laid down) and please why?

[Chaoskraehe]

I have to say... I don't care. Gameplay and fun playing ships and nice camos are more important for me. 

 

But  made in real steel is a nice bonus. 

[invicta2012]

9 minutes ago, Major1999 said:

Do you like paper ships (ships wich were never keel laid down) and please why?

Yes, because there were many splendid design studies and actual planned ships whose construction was interrupted by events. I'm not too keen on some of WGs more speculative attempts, though. 

[ColonelPete]

Depends on the ship. It matters if they are complete fantasy and ignore the nations design philosophy or if the design was finished, ordered and then canceled before the keel could be laid down.

[Tanaka_15]

Just now, invicta2012 said:

Yes, because there were many splendid design studies

Smolensk, Kremilin, Russian CV line, Slava, Petropavlosk, should I go one? 

[Bindolaf_Werebane]

6 minutes ago, Chaoskraehe said:

I have to say... I don't care. Gameplay and fun playing ships and nice camos are more important for me. 

 

But  made in real steel is a nice bonus. 

This to a T, really.

[gabberworld]

same way would ask, to you like 3D ships or actually real thing

[Aragathor]

11 minutes ago, Major1999 said:

Do you like paper ships (ships wich were never keel laid down) and please why?

It depends, because there are two categories of such ships in the game:

 

-Real planned ships that were waiting for dockyard space or were designs that were planned to be implemented. Like Alsace, Lion, Grozovoi.

 

-WG designs pulled out of the backside. Hindenburg, Petropavlovsk, and Zao for example.

 

I like the real designs, which were the work of real experts. The WG made stuff? Not really, especially since it's often unbalanced stuff.

 

[Karasu_Browarszky]

10 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

Yes, because there were many splendid design studies and actual planned ships whose construction was interrupted by events. I'm not too keen on some of WGs more speculative attempts, though. 

 

That might be the only acceptable reason, ships that are sound designwise and could have been build if things had gone differently. The speculative failed designs don't hold any attraction for me either.

[Chaoskraehe]

Vor 1 Minute, Aragathor sagte:

especially since it's often unbalanced stuff.

Well, I don't think even a single  ship behaves like their real world counter part. Wows is an arcade game, making a shipbstrong or weak doesn't depend on how good/bad the real ship was. 

[Tanaka_15]

Just now, Chaoskraehe said:

Well, I don't think even a single  ship behaves like their real world counter part. Wows is an arcade game, making a shipbstrong or weak doesn't depend on how good/bad the real ship was. 

Jup idea is much simplier. 

Russian - strong.

German - weak.

Othere somwere beetween but Russian is the best. 

[Verblonde]

I voted 'yes' but my actual answer is more nuanced:

• Given the option, I much prefer real, actually built ships.
• I don't mind things that were started either, but got overtaken by events e.g. Montana springs to mind, GZ (if we must have CVs), and a few of the Russians for example.
• I can live with things that were a solid design, ideally blueprinted etc.
• Where I start getting irritable is where WG are clearly entirely making stuff up without any serious historical basis.

All that said, gameplay trumps realism and if that means having a few fever-dream ships in the game, I won't be having a meltdown.

 

(One plus point of some of the worst offenders in the 'fiction' department - they give us a wonderful opportunity to laugh and point at the insecure Russians, which is always good value.)

[PeteEarthling]

No. Especially if there are tech trees who barely feature any real ship.

[Pikkozoikum]

24 minutes ago, Major1999 said:

Do you like paper ships (ships wich were never keel laid down) and please why?

Though the question is not very specific? In this game? Sure, why not. It's not a very realistic naval battle game

In an historic naval battle game I wouldn't

[SV_Kompresor]

1 minute ago, Tanaka_15 said:

Jup idea is much simplier. 

Russian - strong.

German - weak.

Othere somwere beetween but Russian is the best. 

Aha, I see you're the usual "russian op bias" whiner.

[Tanaka_15]

Just now, SV_Kompresor said:

Aha, I see you're the usual "russian bias" whiner.

jup:) 

 

just wonder can we have some bb that is better than petro, or some cruser, or some dd. :)

[SV_Kompresor]

Just now, Tanaka_15 said:

jup:) 

 

just wonder can we have some bb that is better than petro, or some cruser, or some dd. :)

Do you watch flamu?

[ColonelPete]

Just now, Tanaka_15 said:

jup:) 

 

just wonder can we have some bb that is better than petro, or some cruser, or some dd. :)

Most Tier X BB are better than Petro....

[Tanaka_15]

Just now, SV_Kompresor said:

Do you watch flamu?

Flambass and Flamuu why? 

[gabberworld]

Bismark for example was strong ship as well but in game it looks like weak

[Pikkozoikum]

3 minutes ago, SV_Kompresor said:

Aha, I see you're the usual "russian op bias" whiner.

Though I'm often wondering, if it's not really bias, rather the fault of how games are. Games often ignore many realistic parameters. Games like WOWS don't take all physical conditions into account, stuff like production quality, crew training etc

 

I think that's why russian stuff is often so good in games.

 

(Though, maybe there is also bias^^)

[Tanaka_15]

Just now, gabberworld said:

Bismark for example was strong ship as well but in game it looks like weak

Bismarck was not that amazing. Undergunned and not that great designe, very havy ship for its firepower. Just propagadna and one increlible lucky shoot. 

[Tanaka_15]

1 minute ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Though I'm often wondering, if it's not really bias, rather the fault of how games are. Games often ignore many realistic parameters. Games like WOWS don't take all physical conditions into account, stuff like production quality, crew training etc

 

I think that's why russian stuff is often so good in games.

Rathere this ships were never finished, never even designed. So you dont go for any comprises.  Petro is not seaworthy. But this game does not care. 

[inkedsoulz]

2 minutes ago, gabberworld said:

Bismark for example was strong ship as well but in game it looks like weak

Bismark does super well on t8 mm, when uptiered, it might struggle tho

 

[SV_Kompresor]

3 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Though I'm often wondering, if it's not really bias, rather the fault of how games are. Games often ignore many realistic parameters. Games like WOWS don't take all physical conditions into account, stuff like production quality, crew training etc

 

I think that's why russian stuff is often so good in games.

 

(Though, maybe there is also bias^^)

It's possible. I mean, there cretainly is a bias in terms of the number of soviet ships in the game (or the order in which they were released), but that's about as far as it goes.