developer Large ship naval battles - Some clarification

[Noxi_Woxi 286]

Well call me intrigued.  I for one have been looking forward to this module for a long time.  Give meh ships I need it.

[przybysz86 10,309]

Just now, VIPER_wotn said:

WOW I am shocked and glad to see Gaijin actually asking the community to help them..

only if you pay them so that they will let you help them

[AWACS_Ghost_Eye 457]

The only reason I was looking forwards to naval forces in WT was to get to sail with cruisers and battleships with better damage models and without some of the stupid design choices they have in World of Warships. I'm not interested in small fast attack craft in the slightest because they didn't do anything really notable. Some people will use combined arms as an excuse regarding tank and ship interactions, but there's literally no reason for them to interact. The only way they'd interact in the slightest is artillery support before assaulting a position, so that's not a valid excuse for the excuse seekers. Ships and planes work together just fine like tanks and planes currently do.

 

In my opinion, internal testing of this isn't enough to find out if people will enjoy it or not. People didn't like LMS or medkits even though the devs thought that it's a good idea, and I doubt that people outside of the arcade crowd will like the lack of capital ships. In a hypothetical situation where we'd have battleships in the game, if queueing up for a battle in a BB would mean that I'd get sent into an EC battle, that'd be fine in my opinion. You could have fast attack craft as an optional game-mode or have it in AB only and have capital ships in RB/sim where people are generally more patient.

 

You tend to use realism as a reason at times, but the game is hardly realistic because of the stupid bounces we encounter with the T-34's in particular, the arcade-tier maps in tank RB and sim (Ash River in particular), the M103's AP shell being completely different than it was IRL despite multiple bug reports on the subject and so on. I'd rather call the game authentic than realistic. Regarding the implementation of big ships, you could spawn the fleets within 30-40km of each other and you'd still have time to maneuver into position before you're within gun range. If it works for planes and tanks, it can work for ships as well.

 

I'd be content with having no capital ships and having destroyers and cruisers instead of just fast attack craft.

[Dwarden 505]

“Knights of the Sea”...  afaik there was already game named "PT Boats: Knights of the Sea"
which actually was about fast-attack boats too
so not only it's entertainment software with the setting and genre exactly the same too ...
so possible TM(trademark) issues may arise ...

 

also don't forget "Enigma: The Rising Tide" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enigma:_Rising_Tide
which actually shown the big ships gameplay can be done well

(note the company went bankrupt long time ago, I remember all assets were on sale, including all those models)

 

Edited August 11, 2016 by Dwarden

[Drei_4_Grenadier 2,257]

For BattleCruiser and Carrier :

Did you plan to use them like a giant and well defended 'Airfield' ( Capitale base for survive)

 

If yes, their would be some possibility to get acces to the gun by using some event ? ( Like a killstreak or secondary objective but with limited time ) 

 

Also, how plane will affect this ? Would be IA controlled ?

 

And finaly, did you plan to add SubMarine ? ( Submarine chasers are comfirmed in the SF annoucement)

If yes, they would be IA controled or Player controled ?

[Sev808 68]

6 minutes ago, przybysz86 said:

Only if there is proper mechanism to prevent battleship CQB in SB and RB or we will end with WoW v2.0

Exactly, I still play a game called "Battlestations "Pacific", the way they handled naval combat was amazing, it was unique not too realistic but it did its' best to be and it was fun. I suggest having a look at this as perhaps a possible inspiration for the addition of larger ships, that's totally not a World of Warships clone, in fact, this game existed long before we had that.

 

[CG62 124]

Also, as for the whole "We have to start somewhere!" thing

 

I think we can see that there are a lot of challenges involved in implementing large ships. It's something new, it will require effort and it will require fine-tuning well after the fact.

 

So mayhaps it'd be prudent to start testing out that implementation and the balancing and such that would be required there sooner, rather than later? Especially compared to the relatively simple gameplay mechanics of knife-fighting PT boats and DDs?

[[email protected] 124]

7 minutes ago, przybysz86 said:

Only if there is proper mechanism to prevent battleship CQB in SB and RB or we will end with WoW v2.0

I'm sure it could be implemented how tank RB works where they expand the map much more than arcade mode, just add more sea :P if we have something twice as big as the Spain air map then I'm sure there wouldnt be be cqb 

[Capt_Fine_Falke 372]

I for one look forward to the fast drifto drifto PT boat battles. Think of all the eurobeat battles you can have  (Sarcasm)

Edited August 11, 2016 by Capt_Fine_Falke

[Sev808 68]

2 minutes ago, Fulvien said:

For BattleCruiser and Carrier :

Did you plan to use them like a giant and well defended 'Airfield' ( Capitale base for survive)

 

If yes, their would be some possibility to get acces to the gun by using some event ? ( Like a killstreak or secondary objective but with limited time ) 

 

Also, how plane will affect this ? Would be IA controlled ?

 

And finaly, did you plan to add SubMarine ? ( Submarine chasers are comfirmed in the SF annoucement)

If yes, they would be IA controled or Player controled ?

These are good questions, submarines are a whole different animal. They must have a limit to which they may remain submerged, their speed underwater must exceed their speed while surfaced, if tough the difference is not that much and depending on the nation fielding it, they mus have their surface gun functional as well as their torpedoes. 

[YoMama2 1,232]

I'm going to speak up in defense of G's slow roll out of small boats plan, even though I'm not a big fan of WW2 era naval conflict and really wouldn't care if they ever add it.   I'm in complete agreement with their analysis of why it doesn't make sense them to do a battleship rollout quickly.   It won't be a fun game.   Guys who are salivating for it do not understand just how dull a BB on BB conflict in WW2 would be when ginned up in a computer game hoping to be somewhat realistic in time and space.  

 

Imagine you're on the bridge of the Iowa looking out on a sea, about to engage the lurking Yamato somewhere.   What do you see when you C rotate around you?  You see absolutely nothing but Gaijin's lovely rendered sea and sky.   The Yamato... if can even see it.... is just the teeny tiniest one pixel big dot on the horizon.   It's over 20 miles away.   Your radar scope barely registers it, you have to binoc up to the highest power just to make a shape out.   Then you begin your mathematical calculations to try to gauge how to hit it.   Fire for effect, adjust your fire.   Eventually, one or the other tiny dot goes boom if you creep close enough.

 

Scintillating game play this is NOT.   Gameplay resembling WT's current AF and GF this is not.  I couldn't care less to ever try it.  

 

The reason why that sort of game won't work can be summed up in one word ........  Jutland.  The last time battleships ever fought each other and the last major sea battle fought between capital ships in visible range.   It was 1916 folks.   So the kind of Iowa on Yamato conflict you are imagining is all fantasy anyway.   Cut G some slack if they are discovering that to try to approximate it may be possible, but it would prove to be deadly dull.

 

When G rolled out its wonderful April Fool's Day experiment with the Golden Hind pirate ships, I was delighted.   I loved that little experiment, and I thought it worked really well as a test for a possible real game.   But I could also instantly see from it how G would have problems making WW2 style naval conflict interesting and enjoyable.   The pirate test worked because the short range of the 16th century cannons forced you to come close enough to see the other ships, engage them, move strategically, gauge the wind and waves, etc.   The game still took place in a discrete arena where the conflict was visible and enjoyable and G's strengths in rendering stuff could be exploited.    That was game I would buy and play, but that age of sail game is not War Thunder.   In fact, I'd play any historical naval game that STOPPED at Jutland, not one that started in 1939.    Email me when you release that game Gaijin. 

 

Until then, you have my sympathy, my patience, my condolences.  You've got a tough row to hoe

Edited August 11, 2016 by YoMama2

[[email protected] 657]

This is just the beginning everyone! Asking for larger ships gives the developers a reason to add them later!

Dont get to dissuaded people, its just the beginning.

[Smin1080p 60,274]

19 minutes ago, SubRyan said:

So what are those of us waiting for the simulation side supposed to do? MTB duels does not sound appealing at all

 

 

That honestly sounds like a giant copout. There are already multiple 'one-off' vehicles in the game that are seen multiple times in a match, or the fact that air composition in a battle is generally way out of historical settings, or even the entirety of ground forces for that matter

 

There is quite a significant gameplay difference, between a Maus for example than a 70,000 odd ton Yamato class fleet flag battleship. 

[FSM2000 3]

42 minutes ago, Scarper said:

I think we should wait a little more time to resolve all of this problems. For me is better release the ships later whitout this problems than earlier whit this problems. We will not resolve all of this in time.

 

[CodrMan 0]

Is there a way we can join the cbt when it starts, or will the testers be choosen randomly.

[Capt_Fine_Falke 372]

You (Gaijin) were so close to being able to send a knockout blow to (Another warship game), and now the chance is blown. What was being thought of when this choice was made? I am so disappointed. I expected NAVY not coastguard. 

[Flankhunter 609]

Looking more deeply in this topic,it's really hard to make this work.

It could work good if we are going to have:

-medium sized maps

-very different damage models for AB,RB and SB.

-match time about 20 to 30 mins max.

For Arcade mode.

This mode should be for fast close quarter combat on open sea.

For Realistic mode.

For players to enjoy medium sized maps,shooting enemies from medium range and close range with 30 max mins of the match.

Sim mode...pretty much the same like Realistic mode.

Map and the time of one match is the key to make this work.

[SubRyan 5,556]

Just now, Smin1080p said:

 

There is quite a significant gameplay difference, between a Maus for example than a 70,000 odd ton Yamato class fleet flag battleship. 

 

Yeah, one is a giant slow floating target that has no problem penning itself and attracts torpedoes and bombs of all shapes and sizes. The other is a prototype

[CG62 124]

Pardon my incompetence using this forum, as I'm sure you can tell by the post count I don't post here often and I'm used to more traditional setups.

 

Quote

Scarper

The development time and investment to produce a single capitol ship would be incredibly large, to what end? Nobody plays them?

 

Develop the capitals, give them an initial implementation. Gather data, judge reactions, then refine. This is the point of testing, no? To see how things work, and to improve them, or change them entirely if they need to be? We have models for AI capitals in game already, don't we? Use those as placeholder assets while testing the mechanical implementation. There IS a good implementation for large vessels, it just needs to be found. I think the community is proving this as we speak.

[AWACS_Ghost_Eye 457]

Furthermore, you'd probably be able to snatch some people from WoWS who aren't into the arcadey way it plays out or want to try out a different kind of gameplay if you'd implement big ships better than they've done. Especially if you'd start out with Royal Navy vessels that many are awaiting for in WoWS.

[Smin1080p 60,274]

1 minute ago, SubRyan said:

 

Yeah, one is a giant slow floating target that has no problem penning itself and attracts torpedoes and bombs of all shapes and sizes. The other is a prototype

 

The point being you could not have 16 Yamatos in a match with 16 Maus and 16 Sabre F-2s as an example. Whilst the later 2 work, Capital ships are an entirely more complex and substantiated kettle of fish. 

[bellezza03 6,005]

2 minutes ago, EnkoACE said:

Looking more deeply in this topic,it's really hard to make this work.

It could work good if we are going to have:

-medium sized maps

-very different damage models for AB,RB and SB.

-match time about 20 to 30 mins max.

For Arcade mode.

This mode should be for fast close quarter combat on open sea.

For Realistic mode.

For players to enjoy medium sized maps,shooting enemies from medium range and close range with 30 max mins of the match.

Sim mode...pretty much the same like Realistic mode.

Map and the time of one match is the key to make this work.

Realistic battles has to go up to 1 hour or 45 minutes... i think 30 minutes it s a little bit too less. Dontl t forget that big battleship need around 45-50 sec to reload

[Hunter12396 3,519]

"Yamato and Missouri were unique"

meanwhile Missouri was an Iowa class and had three sisters, Iowa, New Jersey, and Wisconsin

Yamato had a sister, Musashi, and a step sister, Shinano

[CrouchingNarwal 347]

What if battleships destroyers and cruisers can be controlled by players in a type of ships enduring conformation mode???

[Dwarden 505]

Gaijin can do fast attack boats, escort boats, patrol boats, coast guard boats, steam gun boats, landing supports etc.

so there is plenty of possible 'ships and types' to be done , like the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Torpedo_Boat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-boat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PT_boat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAS_(motorboat)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Power_Boat_Company
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_Gun_Boat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_torpedo_boats_of_World_War_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairmile_D_motor_torpedo_boat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairmile_A_motor_launch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairmile_B_motor_launch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairmile_C_motor_gun_boat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairmile_H_landing_craft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Craft_Support

and I bet submarines, minelayers, minesweepers, escort cargo ships with weapons can be done too ...

so variety is still possible for 'fun' and interest, while starting 'small' size