History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Tue Jan 23, 2018 6:30 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: World of Warships
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 3:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:55 am
Posts: 4733
Location: D88 by night, D20 by day
Craiglxviii wrote:
It isn't so much that the Russian/ Soviet kit is OP, its that it all seems to never suffer any obvious weakness with only a few exceptions (KV-5's driver's cupola for instance). Their tanks have utterly crap gun depression (some tanks have no depression below 0 degrees) but due to the modeling constraints that's not a problem.

In other words, they didn't deliberately make the Russian/Soviet kit overpowered, instead they made modelling assumptions that favour the Russian/Soviet kit....

_________________
If the BBC told me that it was dark outside at two o'clock in the morning on a stormy day in December, I would feel obliged to check their facts.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: World of Warships
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:04 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6375
Location: Cambs, UK
RLBH wrote:
Craiglxviii wrote:
It isn't so much that the Russian/ Soviet kit is OP, its that it all seems to never suffer any obvious weakness with only a few exceptions (KV-5's driver's cupola for instance). Their tanks have utterly crap gun depression (some tanks have no depression below 0 degrees) but due to the modeling constraints that's not a problem.

In other words, they didn't deliberately make the Russian/Soviet kit overpowered, instead they made modelling assumptions that favour the Russian/Soviet kit....


Not just the Soviet kit. In Tanks, it also favours most of the fast-moving, fast-firing tanks. The French revolver-magazine tanks benefit especially from this, the Bat Chatillon 25T deals absolute murder amongst Centurions for instance, as it can get 6 shots in the time the Cent can get 1. It then has to pull out to reload, but by that time the Cent is smoking rubble... It is interesting to see how vehicles that either were never built, or historically only adequate, perform far better in absolute terms than those which were actually built and actually did rather well. The Centurion vs T-55 for example.

But in essence, yes, the modeling assumptions restrict the viewing distance to maybe 20% of what is achievable in reality; as speed is a constant in Tanks that shrinks everything else.

In Warships though, speed is not a constant. 35kts = something like 180km/h. Similarly acceleration curves for steam-powered ships are WAY out of kilter, full speed in something like 20 seconds not 20 minutes. I can appreciate that for gameplay purposes. What I've seen too is HE rounds having far more of an effect on armoured ships than should be the case.

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: World of Warships
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 7571
Location: BM-9, BB-30
Craiglxviii wrote:
What I've seen too is HE rounds having far more of an effect on armoured ships than should be the case.

I can actually understand that from a gameplay perspective. Otherwise a lot of people would ragequit after their cruisers, for instance, were only able to peck away at battleships before getting blown away after they did virtually nothing...

_________________
RLBH wrote:
I'm sorry, but I prefer to carpet-shark my enemies. Much more mayhem, though it must be admitted that the laser-guided shark is cheaper.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: World of Warships
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 6:05 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6375
Location: Cambs, UK
The Bushranger wrote:
Craiglxviii wrote:
What I've seen too is HE rounds having far more of an effect on armoured ships than should be the case.

I can actually understand that from a gameplay perspective. Otherwise a lot of people would ragequit after their cruisers, for instance, were only able to peck away at battleships before getting blown away after they did virtually nothing...


Which of course is entirely historically accurate... or half so. They should put in a crew-shock mechanic, based on no. of hits of a certain celibre over a short period of time even if not penetrating. E.g. an Atlanta opening up on a BB at 5000 yards... oops metres... IRL would start fires and knock the unarmoured areas around, wouldn't penetrate the belt but the crew would sure as hell know all about it... that is why I much prefer the damage mechanic in War Thunder. Now, if only they would bring ships out............

Actually thinking about it that opens up another area of gameplay concern. Team play. Not sure what your experience is, but for me it's almost always 8-15 individuals fighting their own private wars.

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: World of Warships
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 7:21 am 
Offline
Current Holder of the Cement Bicycle

Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 1:51 pm
Posts: 8136
Location: Coventry
Craiglxviii wrote:
The Bushranger wrote:
Craiglxviii wrote:
What I've seen too is HE rounds having far more of an effect on armoured ships than should be the case.

I can actually understand that from a gameplay perspective. Otherwise a lot of people would ragequit after their cruisers, for instance, were only able to peck away at battleships before getting blown away after they did virtually nothing...


Which of course is entirely historically accurate... or half so. They should put in a crew-shock mechanic, based on no. of hits of a certain celibre over a short period of time even if not penetrating. E.g. an Atlanta opening up on a BB at 5000 yards... oops metres... IRL would start fires and knock the unarmoured areas around, wouldn't penetrate the belt but the crew would sure as hell know all about it... that is why I much prefer the damage mechanic in War Thunder. Now, if only they would bring ships out............

Actually thinking about it that opens up another area of gameplay concern. Team play. Not sure what your experience is, but for me it's almost always 8-15 individuals fighting their own private wars.


Most battles I've fought have been like that; heck, my best game ever was in my Warspite, 1 vs 4 but they were all cruisers on low health, whereas I had most of my health remaining.

That was fun.

_________________
If Jefferson provided the essential poetry of American political discourse, Hamilton established the prose of American statecraft.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: World of Warships
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 7:27 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6375
Location: Cambs, UK
Theye're almost all like it, usually only when I team up with Shane Argus do I have someone I can use teamplay and co-ordination against the enemy. Most times it's just looking for individual opportunities.

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: World of Warships
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 12:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:48 am
Posts: 7253
Location: BB-61 (the ship, not the state)
This sort of stuff is why I don't play these games. I'm just geeky enough to get really, really annoyed over this sort of stuff, and I suspect WoWS will be worse than WoT because they don't even have reality to ground the Soviet fleet in.

_________________
Intelligence can be identified by its rejection of self-deception; by its willingness to admit that it might be wrong; by its insistence upon evidence rather than mere impression; by reasoning that cannot easily be assailed. - Orson Scott Card


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: World of Warships
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 7571
Location: BM-9, BB-30
Craiglxviii wrote:
Not sure what your experience is, but for me it's almost always 8-15 individuals fighting their own private wars.

My experience is, alas, limited to 'watching Jingles' due to computer and connection limitations. :(

_________________
RLBH wrote:
I'm sorry, but I prefer to carpet-shark my enemies. Much more mayhem, though it must be admitted that the laser-guided shark is cheaper.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: World of Warships
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 5750
I'm still working the Fighting Flattops.

From what I've seen, I'm not inclined to start playing WoW. Too fast, no strategy, game mechanics biased, and too reliant on fast reflexes, computer, and connection.

It's like what Microsoft did to MechWarrior 4. 80 ton bipedal machines are supposed to be somewhat ponderous, not acting like a Mclaren with the throttle stuck open and the driver on a mixture of speed, cocaine, and Turkish coffee.

_________________
(English doesn't) just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.--James D. Nicoll


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: World of Warships
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 1:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:07 pm
Posts: 1596
But War Thunder has got ships now, MTB and BB's as it happens :)

The AP only meta makes things quite awkward IME. T1 to 4 haven't been too bad, utterly gimped in some respects, but playable within my bounds of tolerance. T5 with the Emerald is proving to be painful. The lack of generally useful (as opposed to theoretical) DPS with the fragility of the ship makes it hard work. I know the theory, Pop smoke and/or go in with torps, but.... oh well more skill required obviously :)

shane

_________________
Actually, I know Foucault about postmodernism


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: World of Warships
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 3:08 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6375
Location: Cambs, UK
The Argus wrote:
But War Thunder has got ships now, MTB and BB's as it happens :)

The AP only meta makes things quite awkward IME. T1 to 4 haven't been too bad, utterly gimped in some respects, but playable within my bounds of tolerance. T5 with the Emerald is proving to be painful. The lack of generally useful (as opposed to theoretical) DPS with the fragility of the ship makes it hard work. I know the theory, Pop smoke and/or go in with torps, but.... oh well more skill required obviously :)

shane


Shows how long it's been since I launched into WT then doesn't it :(

Experience with the Danae so far, two battles, incredibly fragile, incredibly wrong- I know game balance and all, but the ships did have HE/ HC so why aren't they modeled as such if they're striving for "accuracy"..? Rarrr.

Sorry I had to bail on you, the time I spent online was pretty much the entirety of my free time last weekend one way or another.

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: World of Warships
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 6:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 7571
Location: BM-9, BB-30
Craiglxviii wrote:
Experience with the Danae so far, two battles, incredibly fragile, incredibly wrong- I know game balance and all, but the ships did have HE/ HC so why aren't they modeled as such if they're striving for "accuracy"..? Rarrr.


I suspect because otherwise the players of Big, Stupid Battleships would rise up en masse in revolt as they were set on even more fire...

_________________
RLBH wrote:
I'm sorry, but I prefer to carpet-shark my enemies. Much more mayhem, though it must be admitted that the laser-guided shark is cheaper.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: World of Warships
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 7:37 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6375
Location: Cambs, UK
Now I recall that Destroyer Command had a halfway decent interpretation of range plotting for a Gunnery Director... two triangles that had to be kept superimposed in order to keep the gun range the same, along with relative angle, AOB and speed. That worked, was pretty quick to set up and allowed for much more realistic FC than WoWS "aim off".

Shame the Soviets Wussians couldn't put something like that into play, along with real gun ranges. 6" guns shoot out to 20k, not 12k...

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: World of Warships
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 8:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:07 pm
Posts: 1596
Ok so the AP only thing

Some of this is game design and some partly historical. Because they are running 6" guns all the way to Tier 10, in the face of 7.5 and 8" guns they have to do 'something' differently or apply more magical pixie dust than even WG are happy with. Initially they set up the RN to spam HE. If anyone can remember back to the Beta and early release Cleveland and St.Louis, this was a perfectly viable approach. The Dev's had to clobber the Cleveo repeatedly with a massive nerfbat to stop it just dominating any match it could get into. So for a Dmg generating perspective this was fine. However the RN cruisers are/were fairly light on the old protection, 4"-6" belts while the Clevo was built like a brick **** (the St.Louis was even tougher), and HE spamming depends on duration, its about DPS over time and fire dammage. So they tried stealth, low observation ranges and standardising what had been a successful 'special ability' to smoke for a few premium CL's. Then adding agility with repair for the other 10 minutes of the game you couldn't squat in a smoke screen. This worked, it worked very very very well - too well. It's bad enough having some invisible DD peppering you with 5", or an Atlanta parked behind an island showering down the ****, and an occasional cruiser who could do it once a game was annoying - but this industrialised it and basically pissed off everyone else in the game. An invisible Minotaur with auto-loading 6" hosing you down with a golden rainbow from 16km away was just no fun to play against, and apparently even got boring for player... I find that hard to believe but YMMV.

So they had to find a way to gimp the DPS while still granting some measure of survivability, shifting to AP sorted out the DPS issue against BB's but generated a new one with DD's. So in game RN AP is not really AP - it is AP but its also CPC/CPCBC (or generic SAP if you prefer) reflecting another 'RN" element I'm sure they'd have happily overlooked if it wasn't convenient. The RN tended to prefer HE effect over penetration in 6" guns, 'proper' AP wasn't seen as worth the effort. So they issued Common Pointed (essentially base fused HE), Common Pointed Capped (CP with an AP Cap) or CPCBC (CPC with a Ballistic Cap over the AP Cap) - which all sounds like a bit of hair splitting, a base fused shell fitted with an AP cap under a Ballistic Cap sounds like AP in anyone eles's language. However the CP shells really were not AP, the base shell being far lighter in construction with a commensurate gain HE filler - 2 semi random examples:

CPCBC for a 6" BL Mk.XXIII. 112lb with a 3.75lb HE filler
APC (5 cm Pzgr. L/3,7 (m.Hb)) for 15cm SK C/25. 100.3lb with a 1.95lb HE filler

So according to WG, on hitting heavy armour the 'fuse' react normally with the standard AP delay, hitting light plate and its more like instantaneous... so they say. I still get mostly OP's on DD's. Anyway that worked to a point but they also noticed the economics didn't work, the high RNG factor with AP meant even if played well you were now shooting more shells per point of dmg inflicted, so no one was making any (in game) money. So WG basically had to revamp the whole reward table for everyone to make it all work.

In summary the RN's AP isn't AP like everyone else has.... as best I can tell, and rather ironically, its actually WWII USN AP in terms of fuse, filler ratio and ballistics, but... oh gawd this is getting silly ... naturally its not a 'super heavy' type shell of actual WWII USN pattern, so it shouldn't have the rainbow ballistics.

Anyway

Craig, no worries mate :)

shane

_________________
Actually, I know Foucault about postmodernism


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: World of Warships
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 8:18 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6375
Location: Cambs, UK
Hmm very interesting indeed, I did wonder if it was CPC/SAP but so far I've not had a chance to try it out against DDs. Give it time give it time.

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: World of Warships
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 4:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 7571
Location: BM-9, BB-30
Craiglxviii wrote:
Hmm very interesting indeed, I did wonder if it was CPC/SAP but so far I've not had a chance to try it out against DDs. Give it time give it time.


And as an amusing footnote, apparently the Black Swan at Tier I actually has its ammo labled as "Practice"! :shock:

_________________
RLBH wrote:
I'm sorry, but I prefer to carpet-shark my enemies. Much more mayhem, though it must be admitted that the laser-guided shark is cheaper.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: World of Warships
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:07 pm
Posts: 1596
Leander.... yesssss my precious

So I have 4 games in the Leander. In the first two I retrained my skipper (with the help of some flags etc) and unlocked the fire control upgrade, took 5 kills, landed over 300 hits and generally had a fun time... no let me rephrase that - it was AMAZING. Then realised that while I had all the fancy consumables, I'd not fitted any of the upgrade modules... opps! So, hastily fitted said modules - and utterly bombed the next two games, could not find backside with GPS and native guide. :)

shane

_________________
Actually, I know Foucault about postmodernism


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: World of Warships
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 4:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 7571
Location: BM-9, BB-30
And here's a good example of a well-played Brit cruiser.


_________________
RLBH wrote:
I'm sorry, but I prefer to carpet-shark my enemies. Much more mayhem, though it must be admitted that the laser-guided shark is cheaper.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: World of Warships
PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2016 5:03 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6375
Location: Cambs, UK
I wouldn't mind just ONE battle like that.

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: World of Warships
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:26 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6375
Location: Cambs, UK
Well I have the Leander. I'm surprised at how flakey it is, very high learning curve indeed.

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Craiglxviii and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group