Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
1MajorKoenig

Time to fix the German Low Tier BBs (after a year)

48 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[DREAD]
Players
5,060 posts
5,050 battles

Fellow sailors,

The German Battleship line wasn’t only one of the most anticipated lines but also turned out to be one of the most popular to date. The popularity can partially be explained by the fascination and history of some of these ships – but also by a more aggressive playstyle the line introduced. In statistical rankings the ships throughout the entire line fare pretty well with regards to damage numbers, a fact caused by the line’s strength on close quarter combat (turtleback armor says ‘hi’) and brawling nature of the line – dealing more damage and receiving more in return. While the effect on the passive meta and overall player numbers was undoubtly positive the line’s sheer popularity also has its downsides as games got flooded with these ships. Players get frustrated by large amounts of German battleships in each battle, amplified by the high survivability of the ships. However, BB overpopulation is subject to a different discussion.

The sneak peak of the British BB line and more fantasy refits on WW1 style ships sparked this proposal to finally fix the German BB line – about one year after the Low Tier German BB debacle. My main grieve with this line is still the extraordinary amount of artistic license WG put into the design as none of the ships at T4-6 has any connection to the actual ship other than the name. While gameplay concessions and balancing decisions are all fine and dandy WG really messed up the low tier part of the line by turning them into pure fiction and ruining any immersion. Even worse, the quality of the fantasy refits is extremely poor - not much consideration went into creating These apparently.

Tiering in WOWS is done more by ship’s capabilities, rather than the era they existed in, according to TUCCY, so an alternative approach to structuring the low-tier line would be very well feasible. The proposal at hand replaces the low tier German battleships with historical ones – following the same logic as the down-tiered premium battleship “MUTSU”. One year after release it is about time to finally fix this line! Enjoy:

 

T3 “NASSAU”

The first German Dreadnought class performs very strong within the game mechanics that generally favor smaller faster firing guns (and Nassau has 12 of these with a stunning reload of 22sec). Nassau suffers from general low tier battleship problems such as short firing range and bad dispersion but is doing well and does not require any changes to her characteristics or design at the moment.

Spoiler

232bff05ztpup.jpg

 

T3 PREMIUM “OLDENBURG”

A new ship, the “Helgoland”-Class “OLDENBURG” would replace “KÖNIG ALBERT” as the T3 premium battleship. She would retain most of Albert’s strength but would be featuring a less efficient turret layout and slightly reduced overall capabilities so she can fit nicely into the T3 meta without being too strong. In game chacracteristics:

  • 38,300 HP

  • Armor is almost identical to “NASSAU” (and therefore slightly inferior to KÖNIG ALBERT)

  • Top speed = 21kn

  • Main battery reload = 30sec

  • Main battery firing range = 11.86km

  • Secondary battery base firing range = 4km

     

Spoiler

sms-oldenburg-in-norway-summer-1914.jpg

 

T4 “KAISER”

The current (horrible/insulting) Kaiser would be replaced pretty much by a slightly buffed KÖNIG ALBERT, featuring the almost same 3D model. Even the beautiful HIGH SEAS FLEET Camo can be reused as a purchasable permanent Camo to increase the ships XP rate. Needed buffs compared to the current ALBERT would be a plus of about 2/3km firing range to reach out to about 14+km and a reduction in main battery reload time to come closer to the historical figure. This would however mean that the “NEW” Kaiser would use the same Tier 3 AP shells as the current KÖNIG ALBERT without access to the improved WW2 shells WG came up with for the current version of the ship and obviously no AA to speak of. Characteristics:

  • 41,300 HP

  • Armor would be identical to the current “KÖNIG ALBERT”

  • Top speed = 22kn

  • Main battery reload = 26sec

  • Main battery firing range = about/close to 15km

  • Secondary battery base firing range = 4.5km

Spoiler

[da0e469d94rpn.jpg

 

T5 “BADEN”

Essentially a down-tiered stock BAYERN that would pretty much work like MUTSU. Her AP is of a WW1 type and her reload gets buffed closer to what she was capable historically. Her characteristic is relatively few but hard hitting guns with bad dispersion (as the remaining line) while having good armor and citadel protection to get close and personal:

  • 43,900 HP

  • Armor would be identical to the current stock ship

  • Top speed = 23kn

  • Main battery reload = 26sec

  • Main battery firing range = about 16.6km

  • Secondary battery base firing range = 5km

Spoiler

2847c12ef71d34263d636d2c95b09004.jpg

 

T5 PREMIUM “KRONPRINZ”

Another new premium ship to be introduced would be a WW1 “KÖNIG”-Class. She’d be a rather moderate improvement over the KAISER, however her tough armor and ten fast firing guns are still valid strengths at T5. KRONPRINZ would differ from BADEN in that she’d have more but smaller caliber guns and with less penetration power compared to the harder hitting 38cm guns on the tree ship. As a differentiator she would have access to the T9 module which would give EITHER further increased RoF OR  extended range to give players a choice what to prioritize. As a result we would see a ship with the following characteristics:

  • 42,400 HP

  • Armor would be mostly identical to the current “KÖNIG ALBERT”

  • Top speed = 23kn

  • Main battery reload = 26sec (without the module)

  • Main battery firing range = about 16.49km (without the module)

  • Secondary battery base firing range = 4.5km

Spoiler

zz_kronprinz_wilhelm_sms.jpg?d0997e20-37

 

T6 “SCHLESIEN” (L20a)

The first paper-ship in the new line-up. After the “Battle of Jutland” German naval planners were reconsidering the future design strategy. There was a relatively broad consensus that the current division between Battleship and Battlecruiser was on the decline and that Germany would need a unified type of fast battleships, called “Einheitstyp” or standard-unit, being able to cover both tasks. This view was reinforced by the numerical inferiority compared to the Royal Navy, which in contrast could afford the luxury to have separate classes, and by the positive combat experience with the German battlecruisers which were by far the most active capital ships in the Navy. While the German battlecruiser group achieved a great success during the “Battle of Jutland”, the German commanders analyzed that the lethality of the smaller German guns was a severe problem and lacking impact on heavily armored targets. They were very well capable to sink lightly armored British Battlecruisers but that was mostly due to poor cordite handling on the British ships rather than sheer firepower. This led to the conclusion that significantly more powerful main guns would be needed on the future “Einheitstyp” and designs were drawn up for 38cm and 42cm armed ships. It became quickly clear that with the technology available in 1916 there was no way the designers could achieve the requested capabilities while keeping the ship within the limits to use the “Kaiser-Wilhelm-Canal” and the locks and drydocks at Wilhelmshaven. At the same time the German C-in-C, Admiral Scheer, favored submarine warfare as he was not convinced he could beat the Royal Navy in a way that it would essentially end the blockade on Germany. The superiority in numbers were deemed impossible to make up for. As a result of unclear strategic situation the capital ship building program came to a halt even though the Mackensens were already quite close to completion. Scheer deemed them outdated as he didn’t consider the 35cm guns sufficient. In result no new ships were seriously considered for construction and only design and feasibility studies towards the “Einheitstsyp” were conducted. After some back and forth and, with the third and fourth BAYERN still not completed, the decision was taken to at least order the next class of dreadnoughts with a slight increase in speed. As the combined type couldn’t be realized with the technology at hand the staff settled on an improved and enlarged BAYERN class with 42cm guns which became known as L20a. The ships were approved and submitted for full design work in 1918 but the war ended before any of them were laid down. The ship would have looked like a larger BAYERN with a single trunked funnel and would in game be somewhat similar to MUTSU. However, being about 50m (!) longer than the preceding BAYERN she would feature a large HP pool, decent cruising speed but bad maneuverability while still not particular stellar AA (Mutsu and old stock Amagi can act as a reference). Her reload would also go down to the standard 30sec of other battleships:

  • 59,700 HP

  • Armor would be almost identical to the current stock Bayern

  • Top speed = 25kn

  • Main battery reload = 30sec

  • Main battery firing range = about 17.73km

  • Secondary battery base firing range = 5km

Spoiler

BB%20Project%20L%2020%20e%2014%20%201917

 

SUMMARY

The revisited line-up would replace the fictional German T4-6 battleships with real ones, separately balanced around their WW1 configuration. The alternative line trades in modern shells and AA for more raw power and historical accurate ships. It is certainly mostly aimed at players who like their historical ships but would also bring the benefit of reducing the versatility of the battleship class within this line. Currently BBs can deal with most situations themselves – removing some AA would force players back into team play with cruisers for air cover. The line would certainly be unique, beautiful to look at and historically more interesting.

 

Hope you like it J

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,678 posts
9,234 battles

TL;DR: "I like WWI and pre WWI dreadnoughts and would like to see them on the German branch from tier 3 to 6, regardless of how not even having enough AA to shoot down a float plane would play like"


I like the work you put into to, and I like historical ships, but there is no way you will convince anyone that a stock Bayern with even worse AP performance will fit just fine at tier 5.

Too strong AA is a problem, but too little is just as bad. A CV shouldn't be able to park his planes above your ship while you play a game of chicken to see who will cave in first, you with your damage control party or him with his planes.

 

 

For WWI and pre WWI ships in their original form, you will have to convince WG to give historical battle mode, rather than changing half of a branch to be more to your liking. Not to be more balanced mind you, no. To be more in tune to your historical and esthetic preferences.

 

 

Slightly off topic, but you brought it up first, no, the German BB branch didn't do anything positive to the passive meta. It made it so much worse.
Because, a cruiser could take the time to damage someone camping with HE.
With German ships, who cares? Balancedtm armored decks just absorb everything, so as long as you manage your fires, you can solo tank cruisers for 5 minutes.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
5,060 posts
5,050 battles
24 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

TL;DR: "I like WWI and pre WWI dreadnoughts and would like to see them on the German branch from tier 3 to 6, regardless of how not even having enough AA to shoot down a float plane would play like"


I like the work you put into to, and I like historical ships, but there is no way you will convince anyone that a stock Bayern with even worse AP performance will fit just fine at tier 5.

Too strong AA is a problem, but too little is just as bad. A CV shouldn't be able to park his planes above your ship while you play a game of chicken to see who will cave in first, you with your damage control party or him with his planes.

 

 

For WWI and pre WWI ships in their original form, you will have to convince WG to give historical battle mode, rather than changing half of a branch to be more to your liking. Not to be more balanced mind you, no. To be more in tune to your historical and esthetic preferences.

 

 

Slightly off topic, but you brought it up first, no, the German BB branch didn't do anything positive to the passive meta. It made it so much worse.
Because, a cruiser could take the time to damage someone camping with HE.
With German ships, who cares? Balancedtm armored decks just absorb everything, so as long as you manage your fires, you can solo tank cruisers for 5 minutes.

Appreciate your Reply mon ami. Of Course convinving WG to redo the line is not exactly an easy undertaking - granted. Having downtiered premium is probably the more likely outcome but I still wanted to throw this in as I think there would have been - or still is - a viable option to implement these ships even with a significant drawback (AA). 

 

Small nitpick - Bayern in game uses WW1 Shells anyway so there is no difference in AP power between stock and "upgraded" ship other than AA and softstats (most prominently rudder shift).

 

Thanks anyway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
8,102 posts
11,613 battles
27 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

 

 

Slightly off topic, but you brought it up first, no, the German BB branch didn't do anything positive to the passive meta. It made it so much worse.
Because, a cruiser could take the time to damage someone camping with HE.
With German ships, who cares? Balancedtm armored decks just absorb everything, so as long as you manage your fires, you can solo tank cruisers for 5 minutes.

 

You've seen nothing yet. RN BBs will eclipse the Germans and destroy the balance once and for all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder
1,594 posts
3,426 battles
38 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

For WWI and pre WWI ships in their original form, you will have to convince WG to give historical battle mode, rather than changing half of a branch to be more to your liking. Not to be more balanced mind you, no. To be more in tune to your historical and esthetic preferences.

 

why you people still keep talking about modes? like if that ever worked...do you remember historical battles in wot? horrendous queue times. i doubt this will ever work...maybe like pve (which would be way more interesting that the current ones if you ask me)

 

still the problem is that game is heavily focused on ww2 stuff and everything before seems mistreated and misplaced. i would rather have consistent ww2 game than the mess in low tiers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,678 posts
9,234 battles
25 minutes ago, puxflacet said:

 

why you people still keep talking about modes? like if that ever worked...do you remember historical battles in wot? horrendous queue times. i doubt this will ever work...maybe like pve (which would be way more interesting that the current ones if you ask me)

 

still the problem is that game is heavily focused on ww2 stuff and everything before seems mistreated and misplaced. i would rather have consistent ww2 game than the mess in low tiers

 

Because it's the only possible way for

A) Seeing vintage dreadnoughts outside of tier3

B) Seeing early fleets like Austro-Hungaria
C) Having close range BB slugfests

WoT had the significant disadvantage of trying to balance WWII tanks, which changed and eclipsed the previous generation every 2-3 years.

Ships? Not so much. A dreadnought built in 1908 could still hold its weight in 1914
As such, what would be tier3 material in game could still very much fight a tier4 and it would still be down to who plays the best. In theory it could still work for tier3 against tier5, but the HP difference (a purely virtual construct in the game) leans too much in favor of the tier5.

 

29 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Appreciate your Reply mon ami. Of Course convinving WG to redo the line is not exactly an easy undertaking - granted. Having downtiered premium is probably the more likely outcome but I still wanted to throw this in as I think there would have been - or still is - a viable option to implement these ships even with a significant drawback (AA). 

 

Small nitpick - Bayern in game uses WW1 Shells anyway so there is no difference in AP power between stock and "upgraded" ship other than AA and softstats (most prominently rudder shift).

 

Thanks anyway

 

I seriously hope that these ships don't just become low tier premium or worse, just disappear.
A better suited, more isolated game mode would be preferable.
As said above, it would also allow the appearance of other WWI and pre WWI naval powers, which would be fantastic.

And I hope I didn't sound to much like a jerk in the original answer.
If I did I apologize.

 

29 minutes ago, Negativvv said:

 

You've seen nothing yet. RN BBs will eclipse the Germans and destroy the balance once and for all...

 

That remains to be seen.
If the uber heal goes and they don't all get radar (which, if any branch were to have them, it would be the USN branch), I don't think they will damage the balance. They'll fling the global BB population past the 50%, that's for sure, but as far as tier 3 to 8 goes, I don't think they'll be anywhere close to as damaging to the game as the horror that "30 knot BBs with 50mm armored decks, 10km secondaries and hydro " German brand of balancetm
Tier 9 will probably fit in just fine.
Tier 10? That is another affair altogether. If it keeps the heal, uber accuracy coupled with its penetration and lol-worthy 60/67 ricochet angles, broken beyond belief. If they actually balance it, I think it will be fine. Odd, but fine.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder
1,594 posts
3,426 battles
23 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

WoT had the significant disadvantage of trying to balance WWII tanks, which changed and eclipsed the previous generation every 2-3 years.

Ships? Not so much. A dreadnought built in 1908 could still hold its weight in 1914
As such, what would be tier3 material in game could still very much fight a tier4 and it would still be down to who plays the best. In theory it could still work for tier3 against tier5, but the HP difference (a purely virtual construct in the game) leans too much in favor of the tier5.

 

ok. so why they cant be in their original configurations in the game? because low tier ships are just misplaced. put these ships against adversaries against these ships were designed and we will not need fictional upgrades and some modes

 

and you cant make historical mode for dreadnoughts when we dont even have enough ships in their historical configurations in the game and not even enough space for enough dreadnoughts in tiers. not to mention that splitting the queue is always bad move. mode is not the answer. mode is just not possible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
14,622 posts
10,863 battles

You are not writing about fixes, but suggestions to change the game the way you want it to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,678 posts
9,234 battles
4 minutes ago, puxflacet said:

 

ok. so why they cant be in their original configurations in the game? because low tier ships are just misplaced. put these ships against adversaries against these ships were designed and we will not need fictional upgrades and historical modes

 

and you cant make historical mode for dreadnoughts when we dont even have enough ships in their historical configurations in the game and not even enough space for dreadnought battleship in tiers. mode is not the answer. mode is just not possible


Considering you would have to fit all those early, unupgraded dreadnoughts at tier3 and worst case scenario tier4 just to make them viable in the game, no it's not just a misplacing problem.

The game just doesn't revolve around them.
Which is a problem for the nations who couldn't build more new designs for 20 years in between wars.


So unless your plan is to completely change the entire tier progression system just to cater to one branch and maybe a ship or two in other branches, that just isn't happening.
The only way to have these ships fight against each other without having to fight ships they have no hope against (CVs, fast DDs with long range torpedoes and 5" guns, fast cruisers with 6-8" guns) is to isolate them in a sort of bracket where they will only fight each other, and other selected ships with their period-accurate loadout.
That sounds a lot like a game mode to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder
1,594 posts
3,426 battles
3 hours ago, Exocet6951 said:


Considering you would have to fit all those early, unupgraded dreadnoughts at tier3 and worst case scenario tier4 just to make them viable in the game, no it's not just a misplacing problem.

The game just doesn't revolve around them.
Which is a problem for the nations who couldn't build more new designs for 20 years in between wars.


So unless your plan is to completely change the entire tier progression system just to cater to one branch and maybe a ship or two in other branches, that just isn't happening.
The only way to have these ships fight against each other without having to fight ships they have no hope against (CVs, fast DDs with long range torpedoes and 5" guns, fast cruisers with 6-8" guns) is to isolate them in a sort of bracket where they will only fight each other, and other selected ships with their period-accurate loadout.
That sounds a lot like a game mode to me.

 

i would have to repeat all the things i already said: where do you get the ships for the mode? who will play this mode (queue time)? it wont work

 

i posted this image milion times but this is probably only solution. the game just needs fluid timeline

 

edit: matchmaking rules illustrates pretty well how incoherent are low tiers right now

Q4gE88a.jpg

either that or just scrap every ship before 1920 because the mess we have right now is not worth it

Edited by puxflacet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
5,060 posts
5,050 battles

I don't think it is that difficult to be honest. 

 

  • We know that Mutsu works as a downtiered dreadnought with limited AA on T6 - an L20a would be more or less a similar ship
  • We know that a stock Bayern almost works at T6 even without AA so it is fair to assume she would certainly work in a rebalanced form at T5
  • At T4 we know that Arkansas, Ishizuchi and Nikolai work without AA so it is certainly possible to Balance a WW1 Kaiser here

 

I think the balancing is not the problem. There is no strict rule that all ships at a certain Tier need to be of the same era (indeed WG doesn't really care about that fact at all). Cleveland, most Russian ships and some others are not really placed by era or age but because the work somehow within that Tier. So we could more or less easily create a "MUTSU"-Kind-of-line from T4-6. And there isn't even a need to change the whole tiering System (which would be nice but is rather unrealistic with regards to effort, etc.). 

 

I think it comes more down to WG WANTS all the ships to look like WW2. There is not a pressing need as mentioned above. And that is the part were I disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
65 posts
4,562 battles
14 minutes ago, puxflacet said:

either that or just scrap every ship before 1920 because the mess we have right now is not worth it

You now got me thinking about the German High Fleet scuttling in Scapa Flow...

Seriously, I think the game should put more empahsis on ww1 AND ww2. ie, a little bit of hard separation (fire wall) somewhere between tiers V-VII (for example, tier VIa becomes top tier for ww1 mode, wheras tier VIb becomes bottom tier for vv2 mode, including aircraft carriers). This separation could quite easily been solved with a few more ship models (or most likely existing ones) because there are a lots of underutlized sisterships. We have for example four Kongos-class battleships, and it is plausable to have one each in tier V-VI-VII. We also have two Bayerns:-)

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,678 posts
9,234 battles
7 minutes ago, puxflacet said:

 

i would have to repeat all the things i already said: where do you get the ships for the mode? who will play this mode (queue time)? it wont work

 

i posted this image milion times but this is probably only solution. the game just needs fluid timeline

timeline_zpstneuswdo.jpg

either that or just scrap every ship before 1920 because the mess we have right now is not worth it

 

You can post that image all you want, it doesn't make it any more coherent to the game.

You would need a complete game restructuring just to get 12 tiers, which also means finding 2 more ships per branch which is guaranteed to end in early and late variants of a single class of ship split on two different tiers just to pad it out.
Oh, and cherry on top of the cake?
You would have to isolate all the tier 1-5 ships from everything from tier 6 to 12, not only making taking a tier5  guaranteed to club tier 4 ships (and the game would have to find a purely tier 4 and 5 battle), but making taking a tier6 ship in which a new player has no experience dealing with faster ships be bottom tier 100% of the time.

 

That is unless you want to mix your tier5s with tier6-7, in which case you're left with the EXACT SAME PROBLEM AS CURRENTLY, only you have to pad out the tech trees with two extra ships per branch.

 

 

 

In short, your proposal is a phenomenally complicated way of having a historically accurate tier 3 and 4 BBs.
You are willing to sacrifice uniformity between games, content diversity, having 2 extra stock grinds, just to have two tiers of ships you like and want to keep historically accurate. A problem which mostly regards a single branch, by the way.
Burning down the house in order to get rid of the spider comes to mind.
How could you think this to be a better and more elegant solution to a separate game mode?
If anything, your "who will play?" argument falls flat since WoT historical battles never had a population problem. It had a tank diversity problem which lead to long queue times, where the server just gave up and made everyone start the game in Tigers and ISUs.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder
1,594 posts
3,426 battles

ok. we can make it with 10 tiers as well - even time distribution: 5 years for each tier.

unlike curent 10 years per tier for tiers 2 and 3, and 4 years per tier for tiers 4 - 10

mQk0kqX.jpg

but that would actually affect the game more drastically than the 12 tier solution because you would have to remove some ships from mid/high tiers.

 

3 hours ago, Exocet6951 said:

You would have to isolate all the tier 1-5 ships from everything from tier 6 to 12, not only making taking a tier5  guaranteed to club tier 4 ships (and the game would have to find a purely tier 4 and 5 battle), but making taking a tier6 ship in which a new player has no experience dealing with faster ships be bottom tier 100% of the time.

 

isolate from everything? what do you mean? they would just face the ships two tiers above like now. arkansas, nikolai etc. are also facing cvs and refits. this is more about space. even time distribution would make the jump less prominent and wouldnt strain the ship as much as now 

 

and what uniformity are you talking about? the point is there is no uniformity or i'm probably missing the meaning you have in mind. the problem is that right now ships have to jump like 20 years from tier 3 to tier 4 (and from tier 1 to tier 2 also)

 

EDIT:

3 hours ago, Exocet6951 said:

You would need a complete game restructuring just to get 12 tiers, which also means finding 2 more ships per branch which is guaranteed to end in early and late variants of a single class of ship split on two different tiers just to pad it out.

no. just restructuring the low tiers. from current tier 4 would everything remain the same...and yes, 2 configurations of the same battleship in 2 tiers is exactly what i'm talking about.

 

...and regarding the population of your historical mode: it seems to me that you are not realizing that pretty much only tier 2 and tier 3 ships would be allowed right now. and you still dont see the problem with this mode? this can work only as arranged event for some friends but not for a server

Edited by puxflacet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
2,374 posts
9,469 battles

Yay, yet again this topic.

It won't happen. It won't work. 

 

  • A 12 tier solution is absolutely horrible, as even the biggest nations won't be able to fill a tree. Okay, scrapped
  • Downtiering German Dreadnoughts just so you can see your beloved designs look like you want them to look doesn't work either. 42cm guns are way too big for T6, 38cm guns on T5 are an equally bad idea. You would just end up with terribly unbalanced ships which huge downsides to make up for their advantages. We can all agree Mutsu is not a good ship and only her gimmicky torpedoes make her worthwile playing. That's okay for a premium, but you essentially want to ruin low to mid tier German BB's just to cater to some enthusiasts. Go to Hamburg and look at some models in the museums there. Even I don't care and I have certainly far superior knowledge in naval history than most of this forum. It's balanced, it works. I hate Bayerns refit as I do not think they would have gone for a round forward superstructure, but hey, so what.
  • Historical battle mods are, yet again, something for enthusiasts. Nobody played it in WoT with five times the population. What do you think would happen here?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,678 posts
9,234 battles
18 minutes ago, puxflacet said:

 

isolate from everything? what do you mean? they would just face the ships two tiers above like now. arkansas, nikolai etc. are also facing cvs and refits. this is more about space. even time distribution would make the jump less prominent and wouldnt strain the ship as much as now 

 

and what uniformity are you talking about? the point is there is no uniformity or i'm probably missing the meaning you have in mind. the problem is that right now ships have to jump like 20 years from tier 3 to tier 4

 

So what you mean is that literally nothing would change, except tier3 and 4 ships would not face CVs.
Right.
Again, a convoluted way of protecting those tiers.

And look at all 3 WG games, (more if you count mobile/consoles). All have 10 tiers. That's uniformity.
You're trying to fix a problem with the GERMAN branch which historically had a 20 year hiatus, by changing the ENTIRE game.


As for historical battles in WoT, I urge you to look at what happened to them again.
They had enough players to start matches, the only problem being that the historical battles for tanks was utimately "Do you want to play the tier7 tiger, or the tier4 panzer 3?"
Obviously everyone went for the biggest possible tank and it failed, because the MM waited a bit of time before giving up and starting a Tigers vs ISU match.
And this wouldn't even be that, it would just be a WWI gamemode.
It could be worth a try, considering all you have to do is gift existing ships and limit them to one gamemode. That amount of work is rather small, and it could open up the existence of nations that would otherwise not have a chance, like Austro-Hungaria. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder
1,594 posts
3,426 battles
34 minutes ago, Earl_of_Northesk said:

A 12 tier solution is absolutely horrible, as even the biggest nations won't be able to fill a tree.

 

split launch and refit configurations for battleships. the difference is enormous there. many A hulls were already removed because they were just not able to survive in the unnatural enviroment they were put in

 

and youre still keep saying "historical" but my point is more about "more natural/fluid". there are never-builts which are way better suited to fill roles which wg assigned to real ships with fantasy upgrades - that's my main problem

Edited by puxflacet
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
2,374 posts
9,469 battles
8 minutes ago, puxflacet said:

 

split launch and refit configurations for battleships. the difference is enormous there. many A hulls was already removed because they were just not able to survive in the unnatural enviroment they were put in

 

and youre still keep saying "historical" but my point is more about "more natural/fluid". there are never builts which are way better suited to fill role which wg assigned to ships with fantasy upgrades

Which still only works for some nations. And having the same ship for 3 tiers, even if it is technically a bit different, ist absolutely boring, sorry. People already complain about Myoko/Mogami/Ibuki and you want to extend that to even more lines?

 

9 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

 

So what you mean is that literally nothing would change, except tier3 and 4 ships would not face CVs.
Right.
Again, a convoluted way of protecting those tiers.

And look at all 3 WG games, (more if you count mobile/consoles). All have 10 tiers. That's uniformity.
You're trying to fix a problem with the GERMAN branch which historically had a 20 year hiatus, by changing the ENTIRE game.


As for historical battles in WoT, I urge you to look at what happened to them again.
They had enough players to start matches, the only problem being that the historical battles for tanks was utimately "Do you want to play the tier7 tiger, or the tier4 panzer 3?"
Obviously everyone went for the biggest possible tank and it failed, because the MM waited a bit of time before giving up and starting a Tigers vs ISU match.
And this wouldn't even be that, it would just be a WWI gamemode.
It could be worth a try, considering all you have to do is gift existing ships and limit them to one gamemode. That amount of work is rather small, and it could open up the existence of nations that would otherwise not have a chance, like Austro-Hungaria. 
 

We will get Austria-Hungary anway, so what's the point. And people are already not really interested in low tiers, so you want to split the low tier queue. I know that there are multiple reasons WoT failed with this, but ultimately it was still down to player numbers. I'm sorry, it's a waste of resources for maybe 2000 people willing to play this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
5,060 posts
5,050 battles

Comparing Myoko-Mogami-Ibuki to Kongo BC WW1-Kongo BB WW2 is comparing apples to oranges. The latter is literally a different ship with different Speed, different armor, different artillery capabilities (Shells, FCS, AA) and different Looks just the same Name. On the other Hand Myoko, Mogami, Takao and Ibuki are in gameplay Terms (including Looks) very similar. That is why this progression is boring. 

 

But of Course, Earl, you are entitled to your opinion and if the current stuff "works" for you - good for you. Problem with that is while it somehow "works" it doesn't work well. And the expectation should be to make it work well. A brick called "Stalin's dog" would also work with today's Bayern's properties but would equally be unsatisfying to look at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,929 posts
7,756 battles
3 hours ago, Earl_of_Northesk said:
  • Historical battle mods are, yet again, something for enthusiasts. Nobody played it in WoT with five times the population. What do you think would happen here?

 

Historical mode didn't work in WoT because the battles didn't come with pre made thus pre balanced teams where each of the 15 individual slots had a predefined tank. Instead the players were allowed to pick their tank in advance of the battle thus making sure that every player always chose the strongest tank possible instead of playing all the tanks that particpated in the actual battles the historical mode were supposed to portray.

 

2 hours ago, Earl_of_Northesk said:

Which still only works for some nations. And having the same ship for 3 tiers, even if it is technically a bit different, ist absolutely boring, sorry. People already complain about Myoko/Mogami/Ibuki and you want to extend that to even more lines?

 

We will get Austria-Hungary anway, so what's the point. And people are already not really interested in low tiers, so you want to split the low tier queue. I know that there are multiple reasons WoT failed with this, but ultimately it was still down to player numbers. I'm sorry, it's a waste of resources for maybe 2000 people willing to play this.

Well actually Ibuki isn't really needed as it could have been replaced by the Takao class which already exist in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
2,374 posts
9,469 battles
2 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Comparing Myoko-Mogami-Ibuki to Kongo BC WW1-Kongo BB WW2 is comparing apples to oranges. The latter is literally a different ship with different Speed, different armor, different artillery capabilities (Shells, FCS, AA) and different Looks just the same Name. On the other Hand Myoko, Mogami, Takao and Ibuki are in gameplay Terms (including Looks) very similar. That is why this progression is boring. 

 

But of Course, Earl, you are entitled to your opinion and if the current stuff "works" for you - good for you. Problem with that is while it somehow "works" it doesn't work well. And the expectation should be to make it work well. A brick called "Stalin's dog" would also work with today's Bayern's properties but would equally be unsatisfying to look at.

Nonsense. What exactly would be so different in gameplay between (hypothetically) a T4, T5 and T6 Fuso in different states? Absolutely nothing. It is EXACTLY like the JP CA problem. As it is for all those upgraded ships. The only ones which really should be split are the Italien reworks, but no other ships like them existed.

 

2 hours ago, atomskytten said:

Historical mode didn't work in WoT because the battles didn't come with pre made thus pre balanced teams where each of the 15 individual slots had a predefined tank. Instead the players were allowed to pick their tank in advance of the battle thus making sure that every player always chose the strongest tank possible instead of playing all the tanks that particpated in the actual battles the historical mode were supposed to portray.

 

Well actually Ibuki isn't really needed as it could have been replaced by the Takao class which already exist in the game.

Why was that? Not enough players. Speaking in WoWs: too many people wanted to play BB and there weren't enough other ships in queue because not enough people played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
5,060 posts
5,050 battles
5 minutes ago, Earl_of_Northesk said:

Nonsense. What exactly would be so different in gameplay between (hypothetically) a T4, T5 and T6 Fuso in different states? Absolutely nothing. It is EXACTLY like the JP CA problem. As it is for all those upgraded ships. The only ones which really should be split are the Italien reworks, but no other ships like them existed.

 

What is the difference....?

1) Gun characteristics (different shell = different ballistics and penetration, different FCS = different range, different AA = well. For the IJN CAs all of this is identical with a slight but small difference in range)

2) armour (Kongo as built = lightly armoured and almost no Torpedo protection, rebuilt = well you should know as you are the expert of the experts in naval matters according to yourself)

3) looks (the rebuilt changed the appearance massively, most prominently the pagoda style superstructure and one less funnel)

 

It is literally a totally different ship from a game perspective. The stuff that stayed the same such as internals and structure isn't relevant to the game. Putting this as "nonsense" is nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
65 posts
4,562 battles
9 hours ago, Earl_of_Northesk said:

Nonsense. What exactly would be so different in gameplay between (hypothetically) a T4, T5 and T6 Fuso in different states?

Basically we are talking about two different ships here. Hypothetically, a Fuso in T5 would be a completely different ship than a Fuso in T6 based on armament, apperance, speed, protection, AA etc. See data below.

I would rather have a 'firewall' in T6: i.e. Fuso is top tier (T6a) for a ww1 mode while a rebuilt Fuso is bottom tier (T6b) for ww2 mode. An example of another ship for this split is Warspite. Accordingly, I would prefer this:

  • T1: patrolships/sloops etc.
  • T2-6a: pre-war & ww1
  • T6b-10: mid-war, ww2 & post-war (with airctraft carriers)

 

Some data on Fuso:

19 April 1930: The First Modernization:
Kure Navy Yard. FUSO's main machinery is completely replaced. Six new oil-fired Kampon boilers replace her 24 old boilers. This enables one funnel to be removed. 75,000 s.h.p. turbines are installed. The tripod foremast is replaced by a high pagoda tower. Anti-torpedo bulges are added to the hull. Maximum speed is increased to 24.7 knots. Armor protection is increased over the magazines and engine spaces. Main gun barbette armor is likewise increased. The maximum elevation of her main 14-inch guns is raised to 43 degrees and her 6-inch guns maximum elevation is raised to 30 degrees. FUSO's TT are removed. She is fitted with a catapult on the roof of No. 3 turret and equipped with three Nakajima E4N2 Type 90-2 floatplanes.

26 September 1932:
Four twin 5-inch HA guns are fitted, two abreast the bridge and two aft abreast the mainmast. Four quadruple 13.2 mm MGs fitted. Magazines remodelled.

16 September 1934:
Kure Navy Yard. Drydocked for further modernization work, which included the lengthening of the stern by 25 feet. 8 m rangefinder fitted on top of tower mast.

26 February 1937-31 March 1938:
Kure Navy Yard. Refit. The foremost two 6-inch guns are landed and their casemates plated over. 16 dual Type 96 25-mm AA guns (8x2) are fitted, stern is strengthened, 10 m rangefinder fitted on top of tower bridge.

15 December 1939:
Second phase of second modernizations starts.  Aircraft equipment is resited to fantail. An air defense station is fitted atop the pagoda, which is lowered by some 2 meters, deleting two uppermost levels. A new counterflooding system and external degauusing coil are installed.

18-24 July 1943:
Dry-docked at Kure for an AA upgrade and radar installation. One Type 21 air-surface search radar is installed. Twenty-one 25-mm AA guns (2 twin and 17 single mounts) are added for a total suite of thirty-seven AA guns.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/Fuso.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOME]
Beta Tester
1,806 posts
6,783 battles

yeah... no. I mean the fantasy ww2 upgrades could use more work (as in making them at least somewhat realistic), but to only use ww1 hulls and completely remove the AA is a bit too far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
5,060 posts
5,050 battles
5 hours ago, Affeks said:

yeah... no. I mean the fantasy ww2 upgrades could use more work (as in making them at least somewhat realistic), but to only use ww1 hulls and completely remove the AA is a bit too far.

 

Why?

 

I mean we seem to agree that WG's fantasy refits are garbage. It wouldn't be "more work" but a complete "new work" to fix that.

 

But again, why too far?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×