Krieger fingers the community - to get a read on some random questions - Kriegers rant

[Snargfargle]

6 minutes ago, Asym said:

The "game" has an office in Cyprus.....  That does not mean that is where the "money" is in reality.

We live in a world of international companies and we have for over 2500 years. The ancient mathematician and philosopher, Thales, got rich by cornering the market in olive oil presses in a Greek colony in what is now Turkey, the trade in olive oil extending West to what is now Spain and south to Egypt. China has nearly a trillion dollars invested in companies in the US, Japan nearly $750 billion, and so on. Most Americans technically own stock in companies worldwide if they have a retirement fund. Businesses don't care all that much about who they sell to. Sam Colt would have been perfectly happy selling pistols to both the Union and Confederacy during the US Civil War if he could have gotten away with it.

[Admiral_Karasu]

1 hour ago, Snargfargle said:

 Sam Colt would have been perfectly happy selling pistols to both the Union and Confederacy during the US Civil War if he could have gotten away with it.

He did. (Though technically not during the war.)

[Snargfargle]

3 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

He did. (Though technically not during the war.)

Just a bit at the very start. US Civil War: April 12, 1861 – May 26, 1865.

"Though the vast majority of Colt Model 1860 Army and 1851 Navy revolvers went to the Union, Samuel Colt sold guns to all parties until late April of 1861, when media outcry and accusations of Southern sympathies finally became too damaging to ignore." -- Rock Island Arsenal

 

[Nevermore135]

1 hour ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

1. I'm not sure if I would like to see 'proliferation' to take place, I'm a stickler for some historical accuracy. The gun size would/should depend on the ship size, and the maximum limit should have been the 18 inch guns as seen on the Musashi and Yamato. Nothing over that, in other words.

The “proliferation” has already taken place, and it’s not just premium ships anymore. One can get a pretty good look at the state of BB offensive creep by looking at the tech tree tier X BBs, which are also overly represented in the population due to being free to obtain. Of the twelve TT battleships, more than half of them (seven) have guns that can overmatch the 30mm plating that was supposed to boost tier X cruiser survivability (30mm center decks are standard for both CLs and CAs, while CAs have 30mm upper belts as well). Even among the remaining 15/16” armed ships, most of them have an offensive gimmick to compensate for the smaller gun caliber, be it SAP, British BB HE, very effective secondaries, or aircraft. The only one that doesn’t (Montana) is greatly overshadowed by a same tier special ship counterpart (Ohio) with 457mm guns.

The introduction of >460mm guns on four battleships (Shikishima, Incomparable, Hannover, and Satsuma), two of which are tier XIs and two of which are also Japanese (where Yamato already set the precedent for 32mm overmatch) has had a comparatively minor effect in comparison, especially when one considers that the extra overmatch provided by these guns relative to 460mm is fairly niche in its actual usefulness.

Edited December 28, 2023 by Nevermore135

[Asym]

2 hours ago, Snargfargle said:

We live in a world of international companies and we have for over 2500 years. The ancient mathematician and philosopher, Thales, got rich by cornering the market in olive oil presses in a Greek colony in what is now Turkey, the trade in olive oil extending West to what is now Spain and south to Egypt. China has nearly a trillion dollars invested in companies in the US, Japan nearly $750 billion, and so on. Most Americans technically own stock in companies worldwide if they have a retirement fund. Businesses don't care all that much about who they sell to. Sam Colt would have been perfectly happy selling pistols to both the Union and Confederacy during the US Civil War if he could have gotten away with it.

I don't disagree with you thoughts.  But, it's not that simple some days. 

[Crokodone]

4 hours ago, Asym said:

The "game" has an office in Cyprus.....  That does not mean that is where the "money" is in reality.  Once that is established and let's just assume it isn't in Cyprus, a great many of us "can't play this game...." anymore.  Not won't play this game.  There are rules and laws in effect that draw very clear lines in some places.  Right now, Cyprus is the only reason a great many of us are even here.....  

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them" (Einstein) and one of my favorites "Don't trouble trouble until trouble troubles you"...

I'd be interested to hear one law from the U.S or Canada that fines or imprisons someone for playing an international online video game.

[Asym]

2 hours ago, Crokodone said:

I'd be interested to hear one law from the U.S or Canada that fines or imprisons someone for playing an international online video game.

Oh gosh, I really won't get into specifics because this is getting way off topic....  But, a simple start to a far reaching and interesting discussion can start with one word:  Kaspersky... 

[Crokodone]

2 hours ago, Asym said:

Oh gosh, I really won't get into specifics because this is getting way off topic....  But, a simple start to a far reaching and interesting discussion can start with one word:  Kaspersky... 

Which is used and works for the US government including the NSA and CIA. There were several articles on that years ago.

[xamdam]

On 12/28/2023 at 8:49 AM, Beleaf said:

Fingers the community ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

I must admit. When I read this thread title I thought Robby went and got himself in trouble!

[mashed68]

On 12/27/2023 at 4:35 PM, kriegerfaust said:

1. How do people feel about the proliferation of larger caliber weapons, 17-18 inch +

2. How do people feel about the proliferation of torpedo ships battleships and cruisers with more and more torpedoes

3. How do people feel about super cruisers (cruisers with 10' and over guns)

4.  How do people feel about the proliferations of battleships and heavy cruisers with large numbers of guns or high rates of fire

In general do people feel that the game is suffering from power creep, that newer ships are stronger than older ships at the same battle rating.

Is there a gimic you feel is breaking the game, i feel giving every ship smoke cheapens that on the destroyer but i might just be an old man yelling at the children to get off his lawn.

1- I feel poorly about it, but its not a big deal to me.

2- That's fine. Although these 20 torp cruisers should have a longer spotting range for the torps. 

3- They're cool. 

4- That's cool. 

5- The gimics breaking the game are CV's and subs. Remove those and the vast majority of people will be much happier. 

[Crokodone]

17 hours ago, mashed68 said:

1- I feel poorly about it, but its not a big deal to me.

2- That's fine. Although these 20 torp cruisers should have a longer spotting range for the torps. 

3- They're cool. 

4- That's cool. 

5- The gimics breaking the game are CV's and subs. Remove those and the vast majority of people will be much happier. 

Vast majority of your people, there were, was and is a considerable number of people who come to this game as a 20th century Naval Game. And WG is still looking for ways to expand it's prestige to legitimate naval establishments like the USNI in Annapolis Maryland; which has... requirements.

This isn't Pirates of the Caribbean. In the future, I'd look forward to the RN BC curving torpedo trait to be expanded to all torpedo ships; it would make a difference.

[kriegerfaust]

For one thing the number of ships with turrets with four guns seems to be growing i can feel the itch the company must have to make to make them standard thankfully no one is crazy enough to have a ship with five guns in a turret, The other crazy thing is three-gun turrets hitting now four and five growing at an alarming rate, Quads coming in threes and fours.  Fou-three-gun turrets was more common in the dreadnought era but as guns increased in size and ships increased in speed well there are limits to speed armor and guns which the game seems set on breaking, 

This is a crazy question but is there no better thing to make warships deck out of then wood,  i get that wood is cheap and strong as well as being light.  Metal on the other hand is heavier, more expensive and when it gets well is no fun to try and run over.  So was there nothing else that navies of the world could have made it out of was wood the best choice or more tradition.

Edited January 5 by kriegerfaust

[HogHammer]

7 minutes ago, kriegerfaust said:

This is a crazy question but is there no better thing to make warships deck out of then wood,  i get that wood is cheap and strong as well as being light.  Metal on the other hand is heavier, more expensive and when it gets well is no fun to try and run over.  So was there nothing else that navies of the world could have made it out of was wood the best choice or more tradition.

Here's a good video to explain why decks were wood:  Insulation from cold or heat...

 

[pepe_trueno]

1 hour ago, kriegerfaust said:

For one thing the number of ships with turrets with four guns seems to be growing i can feel the itch the company must have to make to make them standard thankfully no one is crazy enough to have a ship with five guns in a turret, The other crazy thing is three-gun turrets hitting now four and five growing at an alarming rate, Quads coming in threes and fours.  Fou-three-gun turrets was more common in the dreadnought era but as guns increased in size and ships increased in speed well there are limits to speed armor and guns which the game seems set on breaking, 

This is a crazy question but is there no better thing to make warships deck out of then wood,  i get that wood is cheap and strong as well as being light.  Metal on the other hand is heavier, more expensive and when it gets well is no fun to try and run over.  So was there nothing else that navies of the world could have made it out of was wood the best choice or more tradition.

in before WG introduce tillmans six-gun turrets

[Verytis]

On 12/28/2023 at 9:35 AM, kriegerfaust said:

1. How do people feel about the proliferation of larger caliber weapons, 17-18 inch +

2. How do people feel about the proliferation of torpedo ships battleships and cruisers with more and more torpedoes

3. How do people feel about super cruisers (cruisers with 10' and over guns)

4.  How do people feel about the proliferations of battleships and heavy cruisers with large numbers of guns or high rates of fire

 

1. Larger calibre actually perform worse if you can already overmatch the opponent with a lower calibre. Since such BBs lose shell volume and/or fire rate, superlite CLs and DDs actually benefit, especially if it kills larger CAs for them.

2. Torpedoes are inherently unreliable, so such ships will never become too OP. That said, their nature as a kiting weapon does make help to discourage aggressive play, which is not ideal.

3. Large cuisers are mostly ok, but their concealment have been steadily decreasing and it is becoming problematic for CLs. Same applies to cruisers with 234mm.

4. There are generally tradeoffs involved between gun volume, firerate and calibre. As long as it's properly balance, but CLs tend to be an afterthought. However it wouldn't be surprising if it were the next trend. We've saturated the game with 457mm, soon it will be time to repeat with lower calibres instead.

[Helstrem]

On 12/27/2023 at 5:35 PM, kriegerfaust said:

4.  How do people feel about the proliferations of battleships and heavy cruisers with large numbers of guns or high rates of fire

Is this really true?

As a quick check I compared the average number of barrels a Tier X CA had when the game went live and the average number of barrels a Tier X BB had when the game went live to the averages now.  When the game went live the average number of barrels for a Tier X CA or BB was 10.5, Zao has 12 guns, Des Moines has 9 guns.  Montana has 12 guns, Yamato has 9 guns.  By my calculations the average cruiser (not just CA anymore, but CB and CL as well as ultra light cruisers like Colbert and Smolensk) has 10.65 barrels, an increase of 0.15%.  The average BB, and CC, now has 9.90 barrels, a reduction of 0.60%.

[kriegerfaust]

It's not just about number of guns but the size of the guns and the layout, sure dreadnoughts of the first world war could have eight ten or even twelve or more guns the Agincourt had fourteen.  But that is hardly the same as the Anhalt or Cristofor Colombo, my question is how many cruisers with guns 8' or larger had more than nine guns, how many of the battleships had 14' or bigger guns with twelve or more guns in turrets with three or more guns, how many light cruisers had long range guns in modern arrangements.

Edited January 6 by kriegerfaust

[Helstrem]

41 minutes ago, kriegerfaust said:

It's not just about number of guns but the size of the guns and the layout, sure dreadnoughts of the first world war could have eight ten or even twelve or more guns the Agincourt had fourteen.  But that is hardly the same as the Anhalt or Cristofor Colombo, my question is how many cruisers with guns 8' or larger had more than nine guns, how many of the battleships had 14' or bigger guns with twelve or more guns in turrets with three or more guns, how many light cruisers had long range guns in modern arrangements.

Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Tennessee class BBs all had 12 14" guns in four triple turrets.  As designed the North Carolina class had 12 14" guns in three quad turrets.  The King George V BBs had 12 14" guns in three quad turrets at one stage of their design process, but B turret was reduced to a twin to get the weight within Washington Naval Treaty limits while retaining her heavy armor.  The original South Dakota BBs that were scrapped on the slipway due to the Washington Naval Treaty had 12 16" guns, Kansas and Minnesota are both South Dakota ('20) class BBs in WoWS.  The Montana class was ordered and had 12 16" guns, but the order was canceled before any were laid down.  There were numerous designs that had 12 guns.

Edited January 6 by Helstrem

[Yedwy]

On 12/28/2023 at 3:54 AM, Crokodone said:

Your forgetting current events. Half the players leaving are in boycott to Russia, which Dubious people insist was the case. WG is financially based in Cyprus. That and both sides of their staff and platerbase being killed in said current events is another factor. That can't be good for business.

i red this 3 tiems and i still dont understand what you meant...

[Crokodone]

10 minutes ago, Yedwy said:

i red this 3 tiems and i still dont understand what you meant...

CNN

[Gasboy]

I wish that WG would stop jamming ships full of gimmicks and quirks.  These things are getting stranger as time goes on.  And lead to situations where a ship is a 'must have', instead of 'nice to have'.  If you have to ban or limit specific ships from organized play, you know things are getting out hand.

I mean, I'd be willing to buy/grind for USS Johnston, HMS Kelly, the French heavy cruiser Foch, and other historical ships even if they played similarly to techtree, or existing premium, ships.  Not every last ship needs to be a unique snowflake.

[Project45_Opytny]

15 hours ago, Gasboy said:

I mean, I'd be willing to buy/grind for USS Johnston, HMS Kelly, the French heavy cruiser Foch, and other historical ships even if they played similarly to techtree, or existing premium, ships.  Not every last ship needs to be a unique snowflake.

We have Dupleix, the last French heavy cruiser built as a direct evolution from the Duguay-Trouain baseline that is created along the characteristics of French cruisers in game combined with her historical hull and protection configuration, and she was offered for 2500 doubloons or cash equivalent as final reward of the 8th Anniversary battle pass. We also have Somme, a themed copy-paste of Jutland.

We also have Velos, . However, quoting French CC Yuzorah...

Quote

Velos is by all means a ship from another time. From a time when radars, reload boosters, and destroyers with Hydroacoustic Search were either non-existent or limited to one or two ships. A faint echo of what the game used to look like.

She is stuck being a gyros-flavored Fletcher, not bringing anything of value to the game, and not having anything to really set her apart from her big sister. It is not helped by the fact that she is only available for money or doubloons. A shame for some of the Greek players that were looking forward to getting this ship.

Outside of her DPM (which gets utterly outclassed by Groningen and Friesland), torpedoes with narrow spread, and her tiny concealment advantage over a Fletcher, she just doesn’t bring anything that would make her worth spending money on. Even if she were available for a free resource, I still would put her quite low on the priority list. Now… don’t get me wrong, it’s by no means a bad ship. I would, in fact, consider her to be quite balanced honestly.

As for Johnston, be careful for what you wish for: I bet if WG simply make a Fletcher clone named Johnston the community will explode with cries like "why a simple, mundane clone despite her legendary real life service". This works for Somme (planned but unfinished), but not for a historically famous ship, I consider.

[iDuckman]

On 12/27/2023 at 5:35 PM, kriegerfaust said:

1. How do people feel about the proliferation of larger caliber weapons, 17-18 inch +

2. How do people feel about the proliferation of torpedo ships battleships and cruisers with more and more torpedoes

3. How do people feel about super cruisers (cruisers with 10' and over guns)

4.  How do people feel about the proliferations of battleships and heavy cruisers with large numbers of guns or high rates of fire

In general do people feel that the game is suffering from power creep, that newer ships are stronger than older ships at the same battle rating.

Is there a gimic you feel is breaking the game, i feel giving every ship smoke cheapens that on the destroyer but i might just be an old man yelling at the children to get off his lawn.

1. Meh
2. Meh
3. Meh
4. Meh

IMO, the old ships hold up remarkably well.  E.g. the lineups in tournaments. Montana, Des Moines, Gearing, Shimakaze are among the oldest ships in the game.  Kremlin is no spring chicken.  Also. to paraphrase a certain Mr. Armstrong, "It's not about the bote."

The problem with adding "features" is that it makes the ships harder to play well.  (I still don't understand how best to use smoke.)  As for non-DDs with smoke, you would have a point IFF game DDs had the traditional role of RL DDs - to screen and support the big botes.  In team play there is some of that, and you'll occasionally see a player trying, but it's pretty much every ship for herself. Plus WeeGee took what I thought at the time was the 'brave' decision of introducing DDs without smoke -- some of the more powerful ships in the game. 

Now get off my lawn.

 

Edited January 7 by iDuckman

[kriegerfaust]

1. what would it take to make carriers less hated, besides removing them from the game

2. same question for submarines

3. how you feel about battleship torpedoes

4. what would you like to see in the future, what would you be willing to pay real money for in the future

5. how do you feel about warships misclassified, Cruiser as destroyers - Battleships as cruisers and a frigate as a cruiser and so on

 

A. fixing spotting would help of course that goes for all aircraft its a pain to be spotted at the start of the game

B.  personally i have not had to see them yet the minor positive for playing legends

C.  there fine as long as they are short ranged and not too numerous

D. more cold war era ships, meaningful variant's of existing ships example (Odin/Brandenburg) 

E.  It is fine as long as the ship in question fills the role