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

Wargaming's take on historical reality vs online gaming?

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
45 posts
5,962 battles

I'm not really a regular poster however I do read the forums now and then.

What I've noticed is that WG tends to quote historical statistics and real life data as to explain how certain ships are equipped, how fast their shells are 'flying' and so on.However I do have noticed the following:

 

Bias towards IJN especially with BB's: IJN ships have generally speaking they have better stats. Much more HP to begin with, IJN BB tier 7 for example 65 500 on a B hull while colorado is on a 'humble' 49100, i am not sure where this info is coming from as their displacement is almost the same (32100 vs 32200). US BB speeds are anything but ridiculous, again at tier 7, max spees of US: 22, IJN: 25. 

Nagato range 20km by default, colorado coming around 19 by default.  In comparsion new york max speed 21 KTS, Kongo 30!!. I

And the fuso is also generally if you compare it to new mex... rate of fire 2 rounds per min, much more HP and also faster.

Cruisers: Almost all IJN cruisers have torps, where as USN does not tier 5 and above, however the pensacola (link HERE) did have torpedoes -yes later on the navy decided to remove it though. 

 

So i know this above is all(mostly) based on historical data, but then again in a real life situation destroyers would not just bumb out of a magical cloud smoke and unload all their torps at you just to run back in, right? Considering that the smoke cloud is only really working backwards, it would be quite unrealistic( See here 

 ). 

Also destroyers were not really hiding behind islands then running away either.... Moreover a direct hit to it's bridge with an AP shell would have blown the whole thing away(or kill most of the crew) - not just scratch it.

What I'm saying is if you sacrifice these things for the sake of gaming, you could also do a little bit of sacrificing in the name of balancing. (let me not go into the details of paying repair costs... which captain ever had to pay for the shells they used..? but i understand WG needs to make money somehow)

 

ps: I know the list and the comparison is incomplete, it's just a general observational I've done through my games.

 

 

Edited by vaskemaskina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DSW]
Players
3,793 posts
7,737 battles

@BBs

speed: historical - blame the US Navy for their standard battleships...

health: not the only factor - USN BBs are in fact quite a bit tankier than their counterparts due to heavy armour. Although I do kind of wonder at the big gap at T6&7...

guns: a bit harder to judge how they came up with the precise figures, probably just design/balance choice within reasonable deviation of history

 

and Cruisers - do you want all cruisers to be the same? I can't find any mention of the two Pensacola class cruisers using their torpedoes in combat, as they were removed before the war started anyway, so that takes care of explaining that... US cruisers have their role (although it does get ever more useless with every nerf to carriers because people stop playing them... If they did everything else just as good as their counterparts, how would their (again historically) far far superior AA be balanced?

Edited by Tyrendian89

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
45 posts
5,962 battles

 

speed: historical - blame the US Navy for their standard battleships...

 

Well right, but this is what my point is, also the wyoming did not exist in reality, yet you can buy upgrades for it, so why not give these ships a chance to get some upgrades in speed? 

 

 health: not the only factor - USN BBs are in fact quite a bit tankier than their counterparts due to heavy armour. Although I do kind of wonder at the big gap at T6&7...

 

I hear that a lot yet i still see the same "1240" hits on IJN or tirpitz as I do see them on mine, yes i know its also about angling and distance as well, but the extra armor added just simply does not cover up for the 10-15k health difference in my opinion. But please do consider that you also have HE with fires and torpedoes that do not really care about armor.

 

 guns: a bit harder to judge how they came up with the precise figures, probably just design/balance choice within reasonable deviation of history

 

When it comes to maximal dmg, its pretty equal. guess they had an average dispersion fact sheet. But lets face it, in game the dispersion look like this:
NAGATO: 231 - COLORADO: 254
FUSO: 179 - NEWMEX: 231
KONGO: 223(237 after the upgrade) - NEWYORK - 200 somethin before - 241 after the upgrade. But note, Kongo significantly outranges the NY... they can basically fly around and shoot them from ranges they' won't even see them, and then just simply go away in case NY gets in range.
These facts indicate also that they are more precise as they have less dispersion.
 

As far as cruisers, no, i do not want them to be the same. However I do find that the ability to launch torpedoes is superior that to having superior AA, as it is always at least 2 carriers (and never one, or 3) in the game and they seem to fight each other for most of the game. And landing a torp is faaaaaaaaaar more rewarding both in terms of XP and credits. Shooting down an aircraft or two.... will get you abysmal rewards.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by vaskemaskina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Supertest Coordinator, Alpha Tester
1,804 posts
8,689 battles

I wonder where you get your numbers from.

Fuso's maximum dispersion should be 241m and not the 179m you mention. In fact the 179m should be for a stock Fuso with 13.7km range or what it is right now.

Kongou is a light armoured battlecruiser while the New York is a heavy armored battleship. New Ypork also carries more guns than Kongou which is giving her quite some extra punch if you know how to use it.

And about the shooting out of range part. That is in fact only possible when the NY is spotted by a ship/plane close to her or just shot her guns because else her detectability should prevent her from being spotted outside her range.

USN BBs can also from mid-tier (t5 iirc) on make use of a module that increases the range while IJN BBs only get this option at t9 where it isn't needed because you already have a good range.

 

Regarding your cruiser statement: Sure torpedoes are a bonus to the maximum damage if, and here is the part that matters(!), and only if you manage to get them to hit which is really tricky with those short range torpedoes that stop inside your detectability range.

Another problem is that torpedoes are blown up easily dealing devastating damage to your own ship in those situations and making you really vulnerable. Also for the IJN ships because of the torpedoes they are longer than their USN counterparts and easier to hit because of those torpedoes. The citadels are much bigger than those of the USN Cruisers too making it again easier to deal devastating damage to them if you know where to aim.

I could go on like that but by now it should be clear that there are some serious drawbacks that the torpedoes bring for IJN CAs and at that they are limited to 10km maximum range while getting into that range of a BB or even another CA is nothing but a suicide mission if the enemy isn't so stupid to sail right around a corner right next to you.

 

Right now you throw around single stats of the ships but ignore how different ship stats work together.

Going by your logic Warspite would be a horrible ship because she has low range, low number of guns and a bad dispersion for her range. Also her deck armour is weak making her suffer from plunging fire and her turret turn time is on par with Yamato. But in the game she is a great ship at her tier and I would even go so far and say she's on par with the other BBs and even better than them on maps where you can use the terrain to your advantage because those 15" guns have quite the heavy punsh and good penetration force compared to the 14" guns of New Mexico and Fusou.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BSPAS]
Beta Tester
117 posts
6,470 battles

IJN BB's tend to be easier to citadel, IJN CA's usually have abysmal turret traverse speed compared to their USN counterparts (and shells are more difficult to dodge than torps), IJN DD's... well, I like 'em more then any other if I can maintain my distance :child:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SAP]
Players
216 posts
2,054 battles

you know, ive mentioned this in other posts, how come you all are so concerned about stats of ships vs historical reality, when the gameplay is so unrealistic that this doesent matter at all? like WoWp had so terrible physics, that if they said those to be space figthers rather than WW2 planes, id believe sooner. but back to WoWs. what about crossing the T? 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_T

 

The implementation of ingame physics means that... not only this principle isnt acurately held, it is truned AROUND. Well, i must admit i was never in a WW2 naval battle myself, but from all the documentaries i watched... ive never noticed that keeping BB a small target is the correct way to handle a clash. 

There are other things... even big HE on small ships waterline dont cause flooding, AP on bigger ships. there is no measure of flooding bla bla. the arcadishness in sometimes necessary, sometimes not and WG completely fails to know whats when. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,286 posts
9,870 battles

From T5 to T8 IJN BBs have more HP indeed, but they are much easier to citadel and have worse armor than their US counterparts (Kongo and Amagi were battlecruisers), have overall better top speed. Kongo has less guns than its US counterpart while the Amagi has 1 more gun than it's US counterpart (it's not much better because it has less frontal guns but that doesn't matter now). Also they have overall better secondary guns. Their role changes from tier to tier.

 

US BBs (T5-T8) have less HP than their IJN counterparts, but they have more armor and angling is more efficient, but they are much slower (with the exception of T8 which is relatively fast for a BB). In fact, they are just brawlers from T5 to T7 and they have much better AA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GRKEN]
Beta Tester
3,552 posts
8,863 battles

Also destroyers were not really hiding behind islands then running away either.... Moreover a direct hit to it's bridge with an AP shell would have blown the whole thing away(or kill most of the crew) - not just scratch it.

Lack of armor is exactly what makes destroyers not take much damage from bigger caliber APs.

There simply isn't anything solid enough to slow shell enough for keeping it inside the ship until time delay of fuze is over...

If that fuze even noticed that shell hit anything because of not meeting enough resistance/deceleration to activate it in the first place.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,428 posts

I'm not really a regular poster however I do read the forums now and then.

What I've noticed is that WG tends to quote historical statistics and real life data as to explain how certain ships are equipped, how fast their shells are 'flying' and so on.However I do have noticed the following:

 

Bias towards IJN especially with BB's: IJN ships have generally speaking they have better stats. Much more HP to begin with, IJN BB tier 7 for example 65 500 on a B hull while colorado is on a 'humble' 49100, i am not sure where this info is coming from as their displacement is almost the same (32100 vs 32200). US BB speeds are anything but ridiculous, again at tier 7, max spees of US: 22, IJN: 25. 

Nagato range 20km by default, colorado coming around 19 by default.  In comparsion new york max speed 21 KTS, Kongo 30!!. I

And the fuso is also generally if you compare it to new mex... rate of fire 2 rounds per min, much more HP and also faster.

Cruisers: Almost all IJN cruisers have torps, where as USN does not tier 5 and above, however the pensacola (link HERE) did have torpedoes -yes later on the navy decided to remove it though. 

 

So i know this above is all(mostly) based on historical data, but then again in a real life situation destroyers would not just bumb out of a magical cloud smoke and unload all their torps at you just to run back in, right? Considering that the smoke cloud is only really working backwards, it would be quite unrealistic( See here 

 ). 

Also destroyers were not really hiding behind islands then running away either.... Moreover a direct hit to it's bridge with an AP shell would have blown the whole thing away(or kill most of the crew) - not just scratch it.

 

What I'm saying is if you sacrifice these things for the sake of gaming, you could also do a little bit of sacrificing in the name of balancing. (let me not go into the details of paying repair costs... which captain ever had to pay for the shells they used..? but i understand WG needs to make money somehow)

 

ps: I know the list and the comparison is incomplete, it's just a general observational I've done through my games.

 

 

 

You make one big mistake. Don't compare historical data with the in game ships. It isn't a simulator, it is a game. The only thing that is historical is how the ships looks like, the rest is subject to change due to balance issues. If the game was exactly according history, we wouldn't play it. We would only be escorts of the CV's or escort freight vessels. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
391 posts

I think some of you are misunderstanding OP. He's saying, if we have acceptable breaks from reality for balance reasons, how come WG isn't making up new stats to balance the ships (like making the NY Class BB faster than 21 knots so it'll be closer to Kongo's 30).

 

The answer to that its quite simple, doing so breaks what little immersion is left, and second, the IJN/USN BB balance isn't THAT far off statswise (usually 3k-6k of Avg dmg difference, amounting to 1-2 normal pens). This difference means that the only adjustment required would be a minor survivability, or dispersion buff of 2-10m. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
581 posts
3,759 battles

Balancing does not mean to level every stat. If all the ships on the same tier had the same stats, what would be the point of having different nations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,266 posts
2,557 battles

 

Excuse me? As it was pointed out before Wyoming-class is very real and even saw action in WW2

 

Apparently you also forget the US battleships superior manouvreability and anti-air defenses. Both make them more resilient against the BBs natural foes - destroyers and aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
587 posts
5,313 battles

My take on this, in summary:

 

WG is designing a good game first of all, and this trumps accuracy - but historical parameters are used as "inspiration", to suggest the directions that the ships go in.

 

It's good that different navies have different design directions to their ships - if they all played the same, why would I bother using ships from more than one country? That means that specific comparisons of ships will appear "unbalanced" (for instance, if I go up against a US destroyer in a same-tier Japanese one, I'll finish on the seabed more often than not), but that doesn't mean that they don't balance well in the broader scope of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
45 posts
5,962 battles

My mistake, did intend to say the "phoneix" not the "wyoming". The latter did exist, the former did not - only in plans. 

 

@Lightbaron, you are right, some of the numbers are wrong, but how can you say USN BB line is fine if - according to your profile - you've got 1 game played as USN, sure you couldda played USN in the beta as well.

but take a look at Nagato vs Colorado, upgraded:227 vs 254 meters dispersion, +15 000 HP, 1km extra range, 0.2 difference in rudder shift, faster etc.

Also Amagi has one more gun spread out on 5 turrets!! not 3.  

 

My overall point is that in numbers and overall "feel" is that USN at least the cruisers and battleships are more or less inferior compared to IJN. And what I am saying is what byronicasian suggested. Not all ships should be the same with the exact same abilities, but some historical statistics could be thrown away to make it more balanced.  

Also right now i feel AA is overrated, at least on BB. Colorado hull C supposed to have great AA and in fact it barely manages to take down 2 or 3 fighters from a squad. And at tier 7 these planes are just swarming. Yeah I'd rather have that extra 5-10K hp instead of the extra AA. Worth to mention AA is kinda ok on cleveland or on other cruisers 


If there was a button for "switch to IJN", yep, I would click on that. Call me a traitor :P

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
391 posts

My mistake, did intend to say the "phoneix" not the "wyoming". The latter did exist, the former did not - only in plans. 

 

@Lightbaron, you are right, some of the numbers are wrong, but how can you say USN BB line is fine if - according to your profile - you've got 1 game played as USN, sure you couldda played USN in the beta as well.

but take a look at Nagato vs Colorado, upgraded:227 vs 254 meters dispersion, +15 000 HP, 1km extra range, 0.2 difference in rudder shift, faster etc.

Also Amagi has one more gun spread out on 5 turrets!! not 3.  

 

My overall point is that in numbers and overall "feel" is that USN at least the cruisers and battleships are more or less inferior compared to IJN. And what I am saying is what byronicasian suggested. Not all ships should be the same with the exact same abilities, but some historical statistics could be thrown away to make it more balanced.  

Also right now i feel AA is overrated, at least on BB. Colorado hull C supposed to have great AA and in fact it barely manages to take down 2 or 3 fighters from a squad. And at tier 7 these planes are just swarming. Yeah I'd rather have that extra 5-10K hp instead of the extra AA. Worth to mention AA is kinda ok on cleveland or on other cruisers 

 

If there was a button for "switch to IJN", yep, I would click on that. Call me a traitor :P

 

 

 

Mind you, I'm not supporting the fictional speed upgrades (or mounting torpedoes on ships that never had them), I was clarifying your position as it seemed people were confused . My 'buffs" to the USN line are pretty much all soft stat buffs and it wouldn't even be all that much if the avg damage stats on maplesyrup is any indication.  

 

I am definitely NOT in support of giving the Standard BBs Fast BB engine upgrades and etc. 

Edited by byronicasian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
102 posts

There is a difference in on paper stats and reality.

 

For USN BBs up to T6 (not unlocked the T7 yet) the speed is low, so you have to play aggressively and their armour supports this (!!! If you angle !!!) This means you can't camp at the back behind the CV's like IJN BBs let you do. In addition they generally have shorter turn times compared to IJN BB's which is a massive advantage when dodging torps and DD's. The superior AA means you can actually kill most planes in a squadron rather than 1 or 2. Yes they have worse dispersion, but you aren't meant to be fighting at max ranges, you want to get to 10km range.

 

From my experience I found the New York to be superior to the Kongo and if it had higher speed it would be rather OP and then what would be the point of sailing the IJN BBs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LO1]
Alpha Tester
1,322 posts
3,908 battles

First off they are most prob trying not to go down all BB are the same... they got to be diffrent from nation to nation.

 

Cruisers well the AA seems a little defunk at mo as CV play is a little defunk lots of players complained about OP CV and they dumbed them down and now most BB with a half good person behind the keyboard can dodge most torps.... where as before lots of players in US CA that cared about team work would at least try cover the slower turning ships from torp attacks...   I dont see any game any more where some ones says CA can you cover me with your AA as its not required as much if at all.... so US CA got a indirect nerf where as IJN CA still strong with good range torps.

 

CV planes slower and harder to do a good manual drop and suffer from BB AA.... ship carried fighters.... CV match making CV vs CV every game... all this made US CA AA sort of defunk.... IJN CA AA is just as good to stop a attack now.  low tier CV seem to run out of planes to easy... mid tier seems a little ok not sure on high tier as my highest tier CV is 8. But from what i can tell high tier games are a little off due to costs and amout playing up there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×