This Game Used to Have Some Historic Perspective

[Jakob Knight]

25 minutes ago, Kalishnikat said:

You people are really unclear on generalizations. 

Me: The sky is blue

People here" it isnt always blue, somtimes its cloudy, sometimes its night time. Stop making unsubstantiated claims

 

Look, you obviously don't know what you are talking about.  Literally.  You make a statement that is not general but absolute and then claim those trying to show you your error are unsubstantiated in their very solid proofs of that error.

 

All because you didn't realize what you were saying when you made the initial post.

 

Am I correct in assuming you meant to say 'I wish they would release more historical ships in the low tier range that I can get for next to no cost like tech tree ships'?  That seems to be the message I am getting from you.

 

 

[Navalpride33]

19 hours ago, Kalishnikat said:

We used to get the occasional historic ship, Arizona, Indianapolis, Warspite etc. Now, (except for Johnston) EVERYTHING is high tier paper. So many real ships just ignored because not high tier science fiction for the whales to buy.

Idaho, Mississippi, Tennessee, Nevada, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Indiana, South Dakota, Washington are ignored for Maine, Illinois and Rhode Island fantasy

Houston, San Francisco, Savannah, Brooklyn, Chicago get swept aside for Jacksonville and Seattle and Austin etc.

Revenge, Ramillies, Barham, Malaya Royal Sovereign, no....Rooke, Devestation and Duncan yes

It goes on and on.

This doesn't even touch on WG's disdain for WW1 ships. 

If they can codes subs and CVs they can code varying caliber main battery ships. 

 

I think... WG only puts in the class of ship and not the entire class line..

I'll take the San Francisco from your list.. Its represented in game by the New Orleans at tier 7.

Must WW1 or steam powered ships are delegated to low tiers.

[Project45_Opytny]

3 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

steam powered ships

You may want to say "reciprocating steam engine"? AFAIK all ships in the game are powered by steam (that has varieties of steam turbine, reciprocating engine and steam turbo-electric) and/or diesel (including diesel-electric).

[Navalpride33]

1 minute ago, Project45_Opytny said:

You may want to say "reciprocating steam engine"? AFAIK all ships in the game are powered by steam (that has varieties of steam turbine, reciprocating engine and steam turbo-electric) and/or diesel (including diesel-electric).

Since I'm not diverse in marine propulsion of WW1... Ill pass . Let those who know define it more in dept.

[Wolfswetpaws]

2 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Can't their paper ships at least burn more easily then?

 😄 

FLAME RETARDANT PAPER
https://www.uline.com/BL_2372/Flame-Retardant-Paper

[Wolfswetpaws]

21 hours ago, Kalishnikat said:

We used to get the occasional historic ship, Arizona, Indianapolis, Warspite etc. Now, (except for Johnston) EVERYTHING is high tier paper. So many real ships just ignored because not high tier science fiction for the whales to buy.

Idaho, Mississippi, Tennessee, Nevada, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Indiana, South Dakota, Washington are ignored for Maine, Illinois and Rhode Island fantasy

Houston, San Francisco, Savannah, Brooklyn, Chicago get swept aside for Jacksonville and Seattle and Austin etc.

Revenge, Ramillies, Barham, Malaya Royal Sovereign, no....Rooke, Devestation and Duncan yes

It goes on and on.

This doesn't even touch on WG's disdain for WW1 ships. 

If they can codes subs and CVs they can code varying caliber main battery ships. 

 

 
 

[Helstrem]

On 5/14/2024 at 10:21 AM, Navalpride33 said:

I'll take the San Francisco from your list.. Its represented in game by the New Orleans at tier 7.

San Francisco is as different from New Orleans as Missouri is from Iowa.  San Francisco had some thicker armor plates in places.

In addition to that, HISTORY.  USS San Francisco CA-38 earned 17 battle stars and a presidential citation.  When factoring in the Medals of Honor, Silver Stars and Navy Crosses she is the second most decorated US ship from WWII, behind only the illustrious USS Enterprise CV-6.  If you just limit it to the ship's awards she drops all the way to third behind USS San Diego CL-53's 18 battle stars and, the aforementioned, USS Enterprise's 20 battle stars.

San Francisco could absolutely be added in as a Tier VII, perhaps giving up some range or rate of fire for a heal when compared to New Orleans.  Or buff San Francisco a bit, higher rate of fire, longer range, radar and, if needed, smoke or a heal and make her Tier VIII.  Or nerf San Francisco in various ways and put her at Tier VI, finally giving the USA a Tier VI premium cruiser.

(Did you know neither of the two oldest tech trees, the USN and IJN, have a premium Tier VI cruiser?)

[Unlooky]

On 5/14/2024 at 10:36 AM, Admiral_Karasu said:

Let's try to remember that the WG tier structure is relatively arbitrary in nature. For this reason I've always stated that the game would be a whole lot better if WG had adopted an era based tier system.

Can't wait to fight Super Dreadnoughts in my Incomparable.

The tiering system works fine as is.

In any game, the gameplay should always be the highest priority, then followed by theming/historical accuracy. 

If you want the inverse, you are not looking for a game, but a simulator, which WoWs absolutely is not and never has pretended to be. 

 

[Navalpride33]

3 hours ago, Helstrem said:

San Francisco is as different from New Orleans as Missouri is from Iowa. 

San Francisco is the same class ship as the New Orleans... There's nothing different between them.

Be me saying this... I'll use a different ship to the argument..

My reasoning, The Titanic is the same as the Olympic and the Britannic.. Though, you argument is they're  not because the Titanic is iconic and one of the 3 ships actually had a long career.  Structure wise.. There's no difference between the ships.

Now, achievement wise.. Yes there's a difference.. But it makes no difference in my context.

 

[Asym]

On 5/13/2024 at 2:16 PM, Guest said:

We used to get the occasional historic ship, Arizona, Indianapolis, Warspite etc. Now, (except for Johnston) EVERYTHING is high tier paper. So many real ships just ignored because not high tier science fiction for the whales to buy.

Idaho, Mississippi, Tennessee, Nevada, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Indiana, South Dakota, Washington are ignored for Maine, Illinois and Rhode Island fantasy

Houston, San Francisco, Savannah, Brooklyn, Chicago get swept aside for Jacksonville and Seattle and Austin etc.

Revenge, Ramillies, Barham, Malaya Royal Sovereign, no....Rooke, Devestation and Duncan yes

It goes on and on.

This doesn't even touch on WG's disdain for WW1 ships. 

If they can codes subs and CVs they can code varying caliber main battery ships.

I am late to this thread......  Has anyone asked:  to what end?   Historical infers History and History is and really, has never has been in the game seriously....  Other than snippets of this or that Action or names or........  We play on Imaginary waters that look like they were made for World of Tanks....  Have we really ever seen real engagements with the ships that were there -  to see what "could have happened?"  A real Axis and Allies mode of play?

Sadly, we are a comedy of the World Wars and are an entertaining small map shooter we play for fun with friends.  This really isn't a serious Naval Game.....

So, let's just have some fun.......and, leave History the game of the future that may actually explore that era of Naval Warfare.....if, they are ever made....

[Admiral_Karasu]

7 hours ago, Navalpride33 said:

San Francisco is the same class ship as the New Orleans... There's nothing different between them.

Be me saying this... I'll use a different ship to the argument..

My reasoning, The Titanic is the same as the Olympic and the Britannic.. Though, you argument is they're  not because the Titanic is iconic and one of the 3 ships actually had a long career.  Structure wise.. There's no difference between the ships.

Now, achievement wise.. Yes there's a difference.. But it makes no difference in my context.

 

Same as with the Olympic class liners, warships that belong to the same class can and do undergo design changes and refits that can result in different performance capabilities, even if these changes don't make actual structural changes to the design, they can change the superstructure and internal layout, and in the case of warships, armament as well.

There's one advantage the Era system would have allowed, and this to reflect better what happens as a result of such designs changes and refits. Currently, WoWS has 'refits' represented in two ways. The researchable modules that do not affect the tiering and are therefore a rather gimped implementation of the concept. Or the thing we've seen lately with WG releasing ships with a particular year as part of their names (a strange practice if you ask me...) which has to do more with monetization than anything else.

5 hours ago, Asym said:

I am late to this thread......  Has anyone asked:  to what end?   Historical infers History and History is and really, has never has been in the game seriously....  Other than snippets of this or that Action or names or........  We play on Imaginary waters that look like they were made for World of Tanks....  Have we really ever seen real engagements with the ships that were there -  to see what "could have happened?"  A real Axis and Allies mode of play?

Sadly, we are a comedy of the World Wars and are an entertaining small map shooter we play for fun with friends.  This really isn't a serious Naval Game.....

So, let's just have some fun.......and, leave History the game of the future that may actually explore that era of Naval Warfare.....if, they are ever made....

WG could do it with WoWS a lot better. Remember Operation Dynamo? The game engine may have its limitations, but it could, IMO, allow for them to create fairly representative and still playable historical scenarios. They'd just have to do it, that's all, and do it more extensively.

[Jakob Knight]

I'm a little cloudy on how an 'era' system would work.  From what I understand, the only way eras in shipbuilding would work would be with major changes in ship technology, as ships tended to slide from one design change to another until something revolutionized the entire concept of shipbuilding.

 

So, we would have Sailing Era, Reciprocating Engine Era, Ironclad Era, Steam Turbine Era, Submarine Era, Aircraft Era, Radar Era, Missile Era, Nuclear Era, and Gas Turbine Era tiers?  With +- 1 Tier MM so the USS Monitor might face off against USS New York?  Or USS Hornet against USS Albany?

 

Seems too broad, and I think it would introduce more problems than it would solve.

 

[Admiral_Karasu]

20 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

I'm a little cloudy on how an 'era' system would work.  From what I understand, the only way eras in shipbuilding would work would be with major changes in ship technology, as ships tended to slide from one design change to another until something revolutionized the entire concept of shipbuilding.

 

So, we would have Sailing Era, Reciprocating Engine Era, Ironclad Era, Steam Turbine Era, Submarine Era, Aircraft Era, Radar Era, Missile Era, Nuclear Era, and Gas Turbine Era tiers?  With +- 1 Tier MM so the USS Monitor might face off against USS New York?  Or USS Hornet against USS Albany?

 

Seems too broad, and I think it would introduce more problems than it would solve.

 

Well, yes, or you could just think in terms of pre-dreadnought era, dreadnought era, WW1 era, Interwar Era, WW2 era, and potentially, Post-war era.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

14 hours ago, Navalpride33 said:

San Francisco is the same class ship as the New Orleans... There's nothing different between them.

Not true at all.

[Navalpride33]

1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Not true at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans-class_cruiser

It mentions all the changes to the ships in the New Orleans class of ships..

No mention of any major changes to the San Francisco. Its safe to conclude.. The New ORleans in game is the representative of the San Francisco in game.

WG has stated, it was not going to put every ship in the class in the game.

So, the solution I see... Change the name from the New Orleans to the San Francisco.

If not, by adding a San Francisco cruiser in the game.. Its just going to be a cut and paste ship of the New Orleans..

Edited May 16 by Navalpride33

[Helstrem]

16 hours ago, Navalpride33 said:

San Francisco is the same class ship as the New Orleans... There's nothing different between them.

Be me saying this... I'll use a different ship to the argument..

My reasoning, The Titanic is the same as the Olympic and the Britannic.. Though, you argument is they're  not because the Titanic is iconic and one of the 3 ships actually had a long career.  Structure wise.. There's no difference between the ships.

Now, achievement wise.. Yes there's a difference.. But it makes no difference in my context.

 

As stated, San Francisco had some thicker armor plating than other New Orleans class ships.  Missouri is an Iowa class battleship, but her, in game at least, transverse citadel bulkhead is slightly thicker than Iowa's.

 

From your Wiki link:

"The barbettes were protected with 5 inches of armor on all ships except San Francisco, whose barbettes were fitted with 6.5 inches (170 mm) of armor."

Edited May 16 by Helstrem

[Helstrem]

1 hour ago, Navalpride33 said:

If not, by adding a San Francisco cruiser in the game.. Its just going to be a cut and paste ship of the New Orleans..

With thicker barbettes and different stats...

Duke of York is just a King George V class BB, yet we have it.  Kidd is just a Fletcher class DD, yet we have it.  Missouri and Wisconsin are just Iowa class BBs, yet we have them.  Warspite is just a Queen Elizabeth class BB, yet we have it.  Boise is just a Helena class CL, yet we have it.  Marblehead is just an Omaha class CL, yet we have it.  Mutsu is just a Nagato class BB, yet we have it.  I could continue.

The list goes on and on and on.  Yet for you, for some reason, San Francisco is a step too far.  Doesn't make any sense.

[Admiral_Karasu]

2 hours ago, Navalpride33 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans-class_cruiser

It mentions all the changes to the ships in the New Orleans class of ships..

No mention of any major changes to the San Francisco. Its safe to conclude.. The New ORleans in game is the representative of the San Francisco in game.

WG has stated, it was not going to put every ship in the class in the game.

So, the solution I see... Change the name from the New Orleans to the San Francisco.

If not, by adding a San Francisco cruiser in the game.. Its just going to be a cut and paste ship of the New Orleans..

 

51 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

As stated, San Francisco had some thicker armor plating than other New Orleans class ships.  Missouri is an Iowa class battleship, but her, in game at least, transverse citadel bulkhead is slightly thicker than Iowa's.

 

From your Wiki link:

"The barbettes were protected with 5 inches of armor on all ships except San Francisco, whose barbettes were fitted with 6.5 inches (170 mm) of armor."

 

The difference here is that we have a premium ship Missouri in the game, and that ship is representing specifically the Missouri. The in game Iowa and the in game New Orleans, on the other hand, neither of the two is specifically the Iowa nor the New Orleans per se, but representations of the Iowa and the New Orleans classes of ships.

The way WG has chosen to go about this is actually a little awkward, because technically it precludes them from ever releasing a premium ship called the Iowa to represent the ship having that name in real life.

[Navalpride33]

4 hours ago, Helstrem said:

With thicker barbettes and different stats...

Duke of York is just a King George V class BB, yet we have it.  Kidd is just a Fletcher class DD, yet we have it.  Missouri and Wisconsin are just Iowa class BBs, yet we have them.  Warspite is just a Queen Elizabeth class BB, yet we have it.  Boise is just a Helena class CL, yet we have it.  Marblehead is just an Omaha class CL, yet we have it.  Mutsu is just a Nagato class BB, yet we have it.  I could continue.

The list goes on and on and on.  Yet for you, for some reason, San Francisco is a step too far.  Doesn't make any sense.

A step too far? Naa... All I'm saying, WG will not add all the ships in a class into the game.

Some yes as you pointed out, all niet.

If I remember correctly, names of ships are changed from first introduction to final inclusion.

That would mean the NO was a different name before.

Again its only another cut and paste ship. I mean we already have a lot of those IMO.

 

[Navalpride33]

3 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

 

 

The difference here is that we have a premium ship Missouri in the game, and that ship is representing specifically the Missouri. The in game Iowa and the in game New Orleans, on the other hand, neither of the two is specifically the Iowa nor the New Orleans per se, but representations of the Iowa and the New Orleans classes of ships.

The way WG has chosen to go about this is actually a little awkward, because technically it precludes them from ever releasing a premium ship called the Iowa to represent the ship having that name in real life.

WG naming commission have always been controversial.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

8 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

The way WG has chosen to go about this is actually a little awkward, because technically it precludes them from ever releasing a premium ship called the Iowa to represent the ship having that name in real life.

You actually believe WG on things like this?

Don't.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

4 hours ago, Navalpride33 said:

Again its only another cut and paste ship. I mean we already have a lot of those IMO.

We have plenty of ships that are the same class but totally different performance.

The various Fletchers come easily to mind.

Just because a ship class is already represented in game, doesn't mean it won't also be represented in another way.

Heck, we even have the SAME SHIP represented in game in different configurations with different gameplay options.

Stop thinking that there are massive limits to what WG could or would do.

[Project45_Opytny]

40 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

We have plenty of ships that are the same class but totally different performance.

The various Fletchers come easily to mind.

Just because a ship class is already represented in game, doesn't mean it won't also be represented in another way.

Heck, we even have the SAME SHIP represented in game in different configurations with different gameplay options.

Stop thinking that there are massive limits to what WG could or would do.

This.

The problem should be considering what role should San Francisco play that would also be different enough from Indianapolis, Wichita, Rochester, Anchorage, etc.

[Helstrem]

38 minutes ago, Project45_Opytny said:

This.

The problem should be considering what role should San Francisco play that would also be different enough from Indianapolis, Wichita, Rochester, Anchorage, etc.

Well, if San Francisco is Tier VII then Wichita, Rochester, Anchorage et al don't matter.  Only New Orleans and Indianapolis.  The easiest route would be to "Boise" her and contrast Indianapolis's radar with a heal on San Francisco.  Reduce San Francisco's range and/or rate of fire to contrast her with New Orleans.

[Helstrem]

6 hours ago, Navalpride33 said:

All I'm saying, WG will not add all the ships in a class into the game.

And?  A second New Orleans class ship, particularly, and conveniently, both the most decorated and the most different New Orleans class CA, USS San Francisco, is hardly equal to adding all of the New Orleans class CAs into the game.  It isn't like we're asking for a ship of a class with many of her sisters already in game.