BB's stock hulls initiave

[puxflacet]

piritskenyer, on 11 August 2016 - 10:26 AM, said:

Why do they need to mess around with appearances?

 

Because of the little thing called immersion. Immersion not only means that you are feeling like you are in a rel battle or some such, it also means that ships look the part. At T4-5 a WWI BB does NOT look the part...

piritskenyer, on 11 August 2016 - 11:03 AM, said:

 ...At T5 a flat top BB will not look immersive...

 

...so we clearly share desire for more immersive game...

 

piritskenyer, on 11 August 2016 - 11:03 AM, said:

... now ships that never ever appeared in the same time don't get slotted together in MM either...

 

...and talking about immersion and misplaced ships:

 

 

this is how fuso looked like before extensive refits in 1930s which follow as B and C hulls in the game. so this should be fuso's stock hull if we want her to look the part,  because right now her 1915 configuration is really extreme example of ship's misplacement. in current stock hull she's like from another world with the competition she is facing (and she is) - she can encounter north carolinas which were commisioned in 1940's ! skipping this hull configuration is immersion-breaking to me

 

so dont forget about battleship stock hulls which till T7 are pretty much all misplaced and immersion-breaking...and that's what this thread is all about: proper placement of ships in the timeline and not just about favoring the historical look

[fnord_disc]

The T4 stock hull really is kind of strange...

[JeepGucci_2]

By taking into account where the spotting platform for the gunnery officers is positioned on that Tripod mast - about 25m above sea level - they would be able to spot and fire at targets up to a range of 18km.

 

[fnord_disc]

 By taking into account where the spotting platform for the gunnery officers is positioned on that Tripod mast - about 25m above sea level - they would be able to spot and fire at targets up to a range of 18km.

 

Care to explain how you got to this number? Also which ship are you even talking about.

 

Make some sense, man.

[JeepGucci_2]

 

Care to explain how you got to this number? Also which ship are you even talking about.

 

Make some sense, man.

 

Ship as shown above: Stock Fuso, Tripod mast. Got it?

The numbers I am referring to is from "how far do I have to be above water to see how far"

Entfernungstabelle

Blick aus einer Höhe von	Entfernung zum Horizont
1 Meter	3.57 km
2 Meter	5.05 km
3 Meter	6.18 km
5 Meter	7.98 km
10 Meter	11.29 km
30 Meter	19.55 km
50 Meter	25.24 km

[G01ngToxicCommand0]

 

I dont have to remodell a ship that has been scuttled 1919! If they remodel ships that survived the Great War 1914-1918 than I say Yes, Great Job! But this only happened to US, some British and of course IJN Ships. The few ships that where "improved" in Germany are not even included in the game.

 

Exactly, it is utter fabrication with the 'upgraded' german dreadnoughts and it is a gross perversion of historical facts that Wargaming have chosen to do so as there are only two possible options that Germany would have had dreadnoughts to upgrade in the first place; Either there was no first world war or Germany won the first world war as the historical correct events dictated Germany to part with all of their dreadnoughts to the allies while being allowed to keep four pre dreadnought battleships and as history showed the german navy sunk their dreadnought in Scapa Flow rather than letting them fall into the hands of the allies. Consequently any upgrades to german dreadnoughts not fitted during the first world war are not only historical impossible but also perverting actual historical events given that WoWS claims itself to base itself on actual history and if WG should really adhere to actual historic events the german battleships from tier IV-VI should be chosen from the four upgraded pre dreadnought battleships that the german navy was allowed to keep as per the Treaty of Versailles.

Wargaming's decisions again demonstrate that history is not of any concern to them and that they routinely fabricate history to fit the game's design when instead they should have designed the game to fit history instead.

[fnord_disc]

Friedrich_August, on 11 August 2016 - 05:43 PM, said:

Ship as shown above: Stock Fuso, Tripod mast. Got it?

The numbers I am referring to is from "how far do I have to be above water to see how far"

 

• That drawing is not stock Fuso. It's the 1925 remodel.
• That tripod is not 25m. The top platform is at 37.5 meters, the same as it was when the ship was built in 1915.
• The ships as built had only 3.5m rangefinders in the superstructure. The 4.5m rangefinders were low, in the turrets.

 

It is doubtful that with a 3.5m rangefinder even 37m up in the tripod mast they would have gotten the range for anything over 15km. And even that range is optimistic.

[piritskenyer]

I give up... 

[puxflacet]

I give up... 

 

ok, you were originally reacting on that you dont agree with ww1 hulls keeping their look but behave as refitted and i agree with you about that. but that was never the case for me anyway. but you based your arguments on immersion, feel of real battles and looking the part, which i felt need to react on because game clearly does not treat ships this way and that's exactly what i am trying to solve in this thread.

 

 

[piritskenyer]

 

ok, you were originally reacting on that you dont agree with ww1 hulls keeping their look but behave as refitted and i agree with you about that. but that was never the case for me anyway. but you based your arguments on immersion, feel of real battles and looking the part, which i felt need to react on because game clearly does not treat ships this way and that's exactly what i am trying to solve in this thread.

 

 

 

I was referring more to Friedrich August, who is a real die-hard "donttouchmuhgermanbattleships" guy.

[OfficialSealclubbingAcc]

piritskenyer, author of very "constructive" posts.

 

Fictional refits - YES, but they have to be logical. Ball-shaped AA directors on Kaiser are not. Nor the Mall-of-America-glassed superstructure. They could have taken the 1925 Emden as inspiration. Kaiser, as it is, looks like a random cluster of various german features from the 1920's-1940's. 

 

Sure go ahead, bash me with "WG IVIL CORPORASHUN" mockery. I applaud 1MajorKoenig for his persistence and he has the right to voice his disapproval.

 Regards

[piritskenyer]

Yes, yes, I know I am a bit overboard sometimes.

 

And okay, yes, maybe some of the upgrades are out of place and shouldn't have been implemented as they have, but what I take issue with is not that some people disagree with some of the decisions taken to "modernise" ships that have been laying on the bottom of Scapa Flow since 1919, but that a fair few people opened up on the topic going "OMG, this is absolutely unacceptable, the Kaiser will hear about this!" (basically).

 

I'd even be in favour of having a little WWI-config-BB-league to play out early engagements, but some of the blind opposition to the concept of "modernising" ships is pis sing me the fnck off.

[mtm78]

I'd even be in favour of having a little WWI-config-BB-league to play out early engagements, but some of the blind opposition to the concept of "modernising" ships is pis sing me the fnck off.

 

We already have this, sadly none of the participants in this thread is signed up ( and frankly, last event was cancelled due to lack of attendance ( yes, me included ) ). 

 

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/45996-historical-battles-general-thread-they-are-back/

 

edit: well ok it's not a league it's separate individual engagements.. but it's close enough If attendance rate's go up it might even grow into something more elaborate

[puxflacet]

ok...new development of this issue:

 

Kongo's 1913 A hull was removed "due to low gameplay comfort" and replaced by old B hull.

http://worldofwarships.com/en/news/common/update-notes-0511/

Well if her stock hull would face ww1 ships only, she would excel...

 

It seems that wg is going to take this route after all:

puxflacet, on 12 July 2016 - 06:08 PM, said:

...

or:

- focus completely on ww2 and remove every ship configuration before 1920

[1MajorKoenig]

Even if I think this is just wrong and another step into the wrong direction - it's finally unmasked. We are not talking about World of Warships. It's World of WW2 Battleships and Russian Wet Dreams Navy.

It is as simple as it is stupid.

 

*Ranting OFF*

[puxflacet]

Well I'm glad that 1913 kongo doesnt share same tier with her 1930 refit, because that was just ridiculous - but also sad that her laid down configuration is no longer in the game. I just wish that wg will finally make up their mind and make a decision about that. Either find a solution for pre-1920s or just exclude them (but i doubt it is still possible - at least becuase of premium ships)

 

What they did so far is somewhat messy, so:

1) tier 1 is no longer meeting other ships than tier 1 - so its now the newcomers playground as some people suggested - i still think that better solution would be 1890 cruisers and let them face at least tier 2

2) and tiers 2 and 3 will not see battles exceeding tier 4 (except for cruisers) - wg obviously see the problems with the radical jump between tier 3 and 4

 

so low tiers are completely torn apart.

 

this game just needs 2 more tiers for ww1 ships for fluent tech trees progression

[puxflacet]

because pictures are better than words...

 

[JapLance]

The stock Kongo hull they just sent to retirement would do a nice tier 4, hopefully replacing Myogi. And they could do the same with the current Fuso stock hull.

[puxflacet]

The stock Kongo hull they just sent to retirement would do a nice tier 4, hopefully replacing Myogi. And they could do the same with the current Fuso stock hull.

 

yeah. we already talked about that. some configurations could be downtiered - even replaced some paper stuff. stock fuso is for sure the same issue. i wonder if she will meet the same fate... these configurations just need to be properly placed to face historical adversaries to be competitive.

 

(however i like myogi. i think she is the most beautiful paper ship wg designed)

[VC381]

Weirdly, Kongo stock wasn't even that bad. I mean, she did 28 knots and had most of her max range. If any hull would be removed for "gameplay comfort" it should have been Fuso. So yeah, this is completely misguided and the wrong place to start this kind of change anyway.

 

But, we have Ishizuchi, which although was a preliminary concept and not built is essentially a stock Kongo that plays better. IMO the RoF and turret traverse make for much more comfortable play on small low tier maps, the WWI looks are definitely there.

[anve8004]

because pictures are better than words...

 

 

Or make WarGaming (if they still for whatever reason don't want to abandon their "WOT like" 10-tier concept) to re-ballance WW2 ships in the way so they start from T6 to T10 (by simply shifting T4 - T8 to T6-T10 and add two more significant tiers for WW1) and remove all unnecesary "never-existed" all-made-up T8-T10 monstrosities like "Izumo", "Montana", "Roon", "Grosser" "Kurfurst", "Amagi", "Moskva", "Donskoi", "Fridrich Der Grosse" .........and other drawing-boards designs ) + (now I know a lot of people won't hear this one) remove Yamato for the sake of overall ballance as she'll never face any real-world oponent matching her stats and the majority T9-T10 ships were simply made-up to match her stats which is insane and absolutely unnecesary... IMHO T10 ships should consists of current T8 (which represents the majority end-of WW2 ships all world navies had during that time).

 

 

As I mentioned many times before.. I'm really curious how they're going to integrate Royal Navy, Italian and French navy to this concept of T9-10 monsters as the ships they're ever build during and after WW2 match T7 / T8 tops (for example HMS Vanguard).

 

[1MajorKoenig]

I admit I also think that Tier 8-10 could have been compressed into 2 as there are tons of fake or paper ships. I don't mind them but they kind of block a tier when you only have 10 you want to use.

 

Imo it would have been enough though to split the Training ships into a separate training tier and bump up carriers to start at T5. By that you could have the Pre-Dreadnought generation at T1, the "Dreadnought revolution" at T2 and have still two tiers left for pre/post Jutland ships.

 

Unfortunately WG doesn't care about these ships as they are more or less only seen as fillers for the low tiers. Most players are rushing up the tiers too so any changes seem unlikely at this point. At the end the three tiers I mentioned above in the alternative power progression are more or less T3 today. That's why you have totally inferior designs like the South Carolina at the same tier as the pretty mature Kaiser dreadnought.

 

Btw: I could easily see that RN fans will be pretty angry as well as the biggest part of the British BB fleet would only fit into T3-5..

[RUSSIANBlAS]

The German T10 is complete fantasy isn't it?

 

So there is no reason WG won't be publishing more paper.

[G01ngToxicCommand0]

I admit I also think that Tier 8-10 could have been compressed into 2 as there are tons of fake or paper ships. I don't mind them but they kind of block a tier when you only have 10 you want to use.

 

Imo it would have been enough though to split the Training ships into a separate training tier and bump up carriers to start at T5. By that you could have the Pre-Dreadnought generation at T1, the "Dreadnought revolution" at T2 and have still two tiers left for pre/post Jutland ships.

 

Unfortunately WG doesn't care about these ships as they are more or less only seen as fillers for the low tiers. Most players are rushing up the tiers too so any changes seem unlikely at this point. At the end the three tiers I mentioned above in the alternative power progression are more or less T3 today. That's why you have totally inferior designs like the South Carolina at the same tier as the pretty mature Kaiser dreadnought.

 

Btw: I could easily see that RN fans will be pretty angry as well as the biggest part of the British BB fleet would only fit into T3-5..

 

Agreed.

What I would love to see is a 'WW1/age of steel battle mode' with era correct hulls, weapons ranges and ammunition types as the ammunition of the WW1 era guns suffered from low penetrations at longer ranges compared to the improved guns and ammunition of WW2 meaning that survivability should be improved on longer ranges for all types of ships, making this game mode a little more forgiving than the normal one.

The game mode should not have the capturing of objectives included, instead the only way to win by points is to inflict kill and damage on the enemy where inflicting a certain threshold of hitpoints of damage of the total hitpoints of the enemy team initiate the points to tick every few seconds as they do in standard and domination mode.

Points would then be added or subtracted by the killing or loss of a ship on the enemy or own team as per the other game modes.

Winning by annihilation of the enemy team obviously included.

 

[anve8004]

Btw: I could easily see that RN fans will be pretty angry as well as the biggest part of the British BB fleet would only fit into T3-5..

 

 

Exactly. For BBs, the majority of naval power will fit into T3 - T5/6 (T7 tops for R.N. Nelson and Vanguard ). So in reality R.N. will have 5 Real BBs and 3 paper designs to match monsters like Yamato, Montana, Izumo and all op.CVs harrasing

It is shame that higher tier BBs are all just wrapped around very few excess ships (few build, rest on paper).