Your attitude to historical camouflages in the game.

[Guest]

I just put Hunter or some real decent looking camo on my ships before battle because I like my ships to look like ships and not prostitutes with too much make up. I detest the lurid stupid over the top crap. WG can ignore and disdain history, doesn't mean I have to.

[Scharnhorst43]

9 hours ago, Kalishnikat said:

I just put Hunter or some real decent looking camo on my ships before battle because I like my ships to look like ships and not prostitutes with too much make up. I detest the lurid stupid over the top crap. WG can ignore and disdain history, doesn't mean I have to.

Try my mod if the principles allow you to install mods manually. By the way, the Discord link in 1 message has expired (I forgot to make it permanent), but I posted a new one there somewhere. Well, or look at my topic in the visual half section of the official Discord, although I’m thinking of giving up and leaving there, leaving only the channel.

[Admiral_Karasu]

I do like this sort of mods very much, appreciate your work. Well... let's have a look at Kagerofu. Looks great, but I also installed the historical flags too only.... well, either I missed something or they aren't quite what I expected. I re-installed the actual historical ensign for the more authentic look and it looks pretty dandy.

 

I think some of the premium camos WG offers also look good, and are historic or at least historically inspired. What I'm essentially thinking are the German camos, and a few others. Myoko, I think, also has a premium camo which resembles something I've seen on some photos.

I did leave out some of the flags initially because, while I do in general prefer historical and authentic looks, I sometimes take ... liberties to get the ensign to match the ship.

BTW, do all your mods work in combination or are there any conflicts that you've noticed?

 

 

 

[Scharnhorst43]

14 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

let's have a look at Kagerofu *cough*

There is minimal work there, but I haven’t gotten around to fixing Kagero yet, but I think I’ll update the archive of Japanese skins before the patch. The funny thing is that this mistake is repeated by most modellers and factories that produce models and booklets for their coloring.

17 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

well, either I missed something or they aren't quite what I expected.

I have, like, an official archive according to the Company’s rules, with censored Japanese flags, but for some time now I have been posting a small archive in my Discord channel, where I add some diagrams and normal flags of Yamamoto and Japan. But the Wyvern variant that you probably used is also cool, but I removed all the unnecessary flags.

20 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

BTW, do all your mods work in combination or are there any conflicts that you've noticed?

There are no conflicts between mods (camouflages, skins, flags). Sometimes, due to forgetfulness, there may be some graphical glitches due to errors in camouflage, but there have been no critical errors leading to a crash for a long time. If there are problems, report them on Discord (I probably won’t create a topic other than this one).

[Admiral_Karasu]

Do your mods generally require updating, camos and flags, following regular WG updates or can you just re-install them pretty much the same following every update?

For the Rising Sun ensign I used the version supplied by an old defunct mod. It's wildly outdated because since then WG has made changes to the UI flags and none of the old mods work normally there anymore.

Additionally I'm using a 'homespun' version of the Ukrainian ensign which is what the Ivan Mazepa flies.

[Scharnhorst43]

1 minute ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Do your mods generally require updating, camos and flags, following regular WG updates or can you just re-install them pretty much the same following every update?

To properly display the camouflages that the Company adds in almost every patch with new ships, and to display the camouflages that I add myself, it is still worth updating the camouflage mod.  The skins mod (Swedish and Japanese) does not require updates (except for that story with Kagero).  Updating the flags is also uncritical, but it is advisable if someone, like me, does not want to see unnecessary flags.

[Admiral_Karasu]

36 minutes ago, Scharnhorst43 said:

There is minimal work there, but I haven’t gotten around to fixing Kagero yet, but I think I’ll update the archive of Japanese skins before the patch. The funny thing is that this mistake is repeated by most modellers and factories that produce models and booklets for their coloring.

 

And that lead me to think something... let's backtrack a bit.

You are safer not making any changes, in a sense, because the fu form is everywhere. Literally, even on Japan made products. So that got me thinking that this sort of error should not be possible.

It's wrong from the post-war perspective, but there's a possibility katakana was spelt different before 1945. Everything certainly was written differently, and the way of how katakana was used was also different back then as opposed to now.

Totally different spelling rules, in other words. There's also the destroyer Maikaze, whose name is similarly spelt wrong from the modern perspective, being spelt Mahikaze... see what I'm getting that.

So...

I'm recommending you make no change to the spelling on your mods.

[Andrewbassg]

4 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Additionally I'm using a 'homespun' ...

Oooh......can U  share it with me? Pls gibb......

[Scharnhorst43]

9 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

And that lead me to think something... let's backtrack a bit.

I tried to find a Kagero of the exact class we have in the game, but for some reason I couldn’t find a photo of this particular ship.  But I found a photo from 1920 of an obsolete destroyer with the same name and there is definitely not that particle above the first hieroglyph.  So it turns out that there really is no need to change anything.

[Admiral_Karasu]

1 hour ago, Scharnhorst43 said:

I tried to find a Kagero of the exact class we have in the game, but for some reason I couldn’t find a photo of this particular ship.  But I found a photo from 1920 of an obsolete destroyer with the same name and there is definitely not that particle above the first hieroglyph.  So it turns out that there really is no need to change anything.

That's what I'd call first hand proof, thanks for looking that photo up. They've definitely used the 'h' katakana differently back then as opposed to know. Well, the lesson here is not to judge history through today's lense or something like that, it's all about the historical context. Sorry for creating unnecessary confusion.

Kagerou historical katakana spelling is now fully confirmed as フロゲカ, furogeka = kagerofu.

[Admiral_Karasu]

7 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Oooh......can U  share it with me? Pls gibb......

Sure thing, mate. They aren't 'picture perfect' and only cover the two most common 'relevant' ensigns in the game. They do not change anything else, I'm not much of a modder.

Of course, they go into the bin/res_mods/content/gameplay/common/flags folder.

russia.dds ussr.dds

[YouSatInGum]

In my opinion WG made a HUGE mistake when they went away from the economic bonuses being tied to the camo's.  (....let's not forget the small performance bonuses too).

Some folks may really get behind the look of the camo's and that's enough for them to see the value, but for a pragmatist like me I need something else on top of that for motivation to care about camos. 

I used to care a small amount about the look of the camos in the sense of what camo was easy on the eyes or which ones were a loud train wreck (like this one posted before...)

 

 

For instance I always thought Spring Sky's were pretty nice looking....  but then again maybe it was the kick ass bonus from it that made me like it...  no matter which was the better reason for liking it, I did like it.

These days however, I find it difficult to care about the camos.  I'm so apathetic towards them that I rarely bother to check to see if I even have one on or not. 

Before I had an underlying reason to enjoy the camos, but without that support, since it now truly doesn't matter, if I can't even bother to worry about even wearing a free one, why would WG ever think I'd assign a value of any kind to a camo on top of that.

 

I wonder if they even realize today what a boneheaded decision that was??

[Justin_Simpleton]

9 minutes ago, YouSatInGum said:

I used to care a small amount about the look of the camos in the sense of what camo was easy on the eyes or which ones were a loud train wreck (like this one posted before...)

The school bus yellow camo was horrendous and extremely visible but I earned a lot of captain's xp from them.

[Admiral_Karasu]

4 hours ago, YouSatInGum said:

In my opinion WG made a HUGE mistake when they went away from the economic bonuses being tied to the camo's.  (....let's not forget the small performance bonuses too).

Some folks may really get behind the look of the camo's and that's enough for them to see the value, but for a pragmatist like me I need something else on top of that for motivation to care about camos. 

I used to care a small amount about the look of the camos in the sense of what camo was easy on the eyes or which ones were a loud train wreck (like this one posted before...)

 

 

For instance I always thought Spring Sky's were pretty nice looking....  but then again maybe it was the kick ass bonus from it that made me like it...  no matter which was the better reason for liking it, I did like it.

These days however, I find it difficult to care about the camos.  I'm so apathetic towards them that I rarely bother to check to see if I even have one on or not. 

Before I had an underlying reason to enjoy the camos, but without that support, since it now truly doesn't matter, if I can't even bother to worry about even wearing a free one, why would WG ever think I'd assign a value of any kind to a camo on top of that.

 

I wonder if they even realize today what a boneheaded decision that was??

Well... don't know how to say, but from my angle that was one of their smartest decisions... it depends what you want to see and what not, I guess.

[Scharnhorst43]

14 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Well... don't know how to say, but from my angle that was one of their smartest decisions... it depends what you want to see and what not, I guess.

Perhaps something with the settings for camouflages and bonuses would be worth doing, but not in the way the Company implemented it.

I think it would be worth not separating these entities, but simply making their settings more flexible.
Like there is a camouflage X with bonuses A, B, C attached, but somewhere there is a window to replace these bonuses with something else.

Now a bunch (probably the majority) of players are showing their rusty ships, which can’t be hidden even with my camouflage, which is also not good.

[Admiral_Karasu]

1 hour ago, Scharnhorst43 said:

Perhaps something with the settings for camouflages and bonuses would be worth doing, but not in the way the Company implemented it.

I think it would be worth not separating these entities, but simply making their settings more flexible.
Like there is a camouflage X with bonuses A, B, C attached, but somewhere there is a window to replace these bonuses with something else.

Now a bunch (probably the majority) of players are showing their rusty ships, which can’t be hidden even with my camouflage, which is also not good.

Now that you mention it, do you mean your camos won't show up if the ship has no camo equipped?

[Scharnhorst43]

14 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Now that you mention it, do you mean your camos won't show up if the ship has no camo equipped?

Well, you know the difference between the terms *skin* and *camouflage* in the game?
All camouflages in my mod are camouflages (oddly enough). That is, you give your ship one color or another, using various in-game camouflages. But at the same time, I also use skins (that is, a modified ship texture), adding hieroglyphs, stripes, or vice versa, removing various numbers, so that there is no confusion such as using the pre-war Sims tactical number on a ship model with camouflage Measure 32/31/ 33.
We should have tried to install the mod a long time ago and see for ourselves)

Because without using camouflage in the game, you will not get this or that coloring from the mod.

Spoiler

For example. Sims.

and Sims B.

Tactical signs have been removed from the standard texture. All tactical signs presented in the screenshot are part of the camouflage.

 

 

Edited October 1, 2023 by Scharnhorst43

[YouSatInGum]

20 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Well... don't know how to say, but from my angle that was one of their smartest decisions... it depends what you want to see and what not, I guess.

I can see how it might appeal to a few people, and no doubt this is how that decision got made.... but it's a still a case of completely misreading the room.

I will stand by the opinion that the majority of players now either care less about camos or like me basically not at all.

 

With that said, I do not see it as coincidence that a massive economic nerf was rolled out as a piece of the camo rework.

The resulting bad taste it left is hard to forget or not associate with the camo rework.

 

Sometimes WG implements some genius level player psychology but on the other hand they seem to do the opposite and alienate the same players just as often....

 

[YouSatInGum]

Just now, YouSatInGum said:

I can see how it might appeal to a few people, and no doubt this is how that decision got made.... but it's a still a case of completely misreading the room.

I will stand by the opinion that the majority of players now either care less about camos or like me basically not at all.

 

With that said, I do not see it as coincidence that a massive economic nerf was rolled out as a piece of the camo rework.

The resulting bad taste it left is hard to forget or not associate with the camo rework.... and then they double down on the lie by telling us it's not about the 50% FXP nerf it's about the flexibility of camos.... yeah sure guys...

 

Sometimes WG implements some genius level player psychology but on the other hand they seem to do the opposite and alienate the same players just as often....

 

The funny thing is that at least as it applies to me, they de-motivated me to spend money on the game.  I used to by the 100 pack of equal speed charlie/papa flags so that I could run those flags most battles.  Now I don't really need to.... has saved me a bunch of money...

 

 

[Admiral_Karasu]

1 hour ago, YouSatInGum said:

I can see how it might appeal to a few people, and no doubt this is how that decision got made.... but it's a still a case of completely misreading the room.

I will stand by the opinion that the majority of players now either care less about camos or like me basically not at all.

 

With that said, I do not see it as coincidence that a massive economic nerf was rolled out as a piece of the camo rework.

The resulting bad taste it left is hard to forget or not associate with the camo rework.

 

Sometimes WG implements some genius level player psychology but on the other hand they seem to do the opposite and alienate the same players just as often....

 

Welcome to the World of Reworks!

[Pugilistic]

I seem to remember that WG removed a historically accurate US camo from some ship because it actually did what was intended by obscuring where the waterline actually was.

Does anyone remember this, and if so, what ship? 

[Scharnhorst43]

1 hour ago, Pugilistic said:

I seem to remember that WG removed a historically accurate US camo from some ship because it actually did what was intended by obscuring where the waterline actually was.

Does anyone remember this, and if so, what ship? 

This is how history is being rewritten.

That *camouflage* (Measure 22) was the standard base ship texture before camouflages appeared. When camouflage appeared in the game, those textures were changed to plain ones, so that the camouflage (what we understand by camouflage now) would be applied not to a texture with an existing pattern, but to something monochromatic.

That is, Measure 22 as the texture of the US ship was redrawn not because it concealed ships in the game, but because the camouflages that the company painted would have been better applied to single-ton ships.

It's better to paint on a blank canvas (or evenly painted one) than on an already painted picture, right?

Edited October 1, 2023 by Scharnhorst43

[Admiral_Karasu]

13 minutes ago, Scharnhorst43 said:

This is how history is being rewritten.

That *camouflage* (Measure 22) was the standard base ship texture before camouflages appeared. When camouflage appeared in the game, those textures were changed to plain ones, so that the camouflage (what we understand by camouflage now) would be applied not to a texture with an existing pattern, but to something monochromatic.

That is, Measure 22 as the texture of the US ship was redrawn not because it concealed ships in the game, but because the camouflages that the company painted would have been better applied to single-ton ships.

It's better to paint on a blank canvas (or evenly painted one) than on an already painted picture, right?

So ... isn't that the USN peace time paint scheme there?

[Scharnhorst43]

31 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

So ... isn't that the USN peace time paint scheme there?

Paint scheme with blue part of the ship's hull? No. Look at the book. And the site itself is interesting.

https://www.shipcamouflage.com/development_of_naval_camouflage.htm

By the way. You never know, but maybe someone has books with profiles and camouflages of English ships?

Edited October 1, 2023 by Scharnhorst43

[CFagan_1987]

I only use historical camos ... or camos that could look historical. I know others have a different viewpoint but I see these camos that turn the ships into some scifi thing or some Kevin Costner Waterworld type of design and it looks ridiculous.