VengefulChipmunk

Ship Tree Speculation

525 posts in this topic

1 minute ago, RohmMohc said:

small problem: if CVs get playable and we have maps where one side DOENST have an airfield while the other needs CVs...and one ofc those nations is germany.. they either wont be able to rearm etc. or wont have any planes... see the problems?

Wrong. We already have alternative history modes and mixed tank matches. So, please, let's move on...:D

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mercedes4321 said:

I agree, there is nothing that states that all nations have to be equal on everything (this in fact practically impossible). The Germans should have enough BBs to make a line though.

Only problem though, is without H39, 41 and 42 they lack any Tier 5 battleships (Bismarck and Tirpitz are Tier 4 easy, with North Carolina and South Dakota).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maze94 said:

Wrong. We already have alternative history modes and mixed tank matches. So, please, let's move on...:D

yes but we also have 1 nation VS 2 others or 1 VS 1... if we get a naval battle where one has a carrier and can reload/refuel planes while the others will simply drop dread... overall the mixed games bring up another problem... if one side is mostly planes (fighters) their ships might be wrecked... on the other hand if one side has nearly no planes...

1 minute ago, SqnLdrAhsokaTano said:

Only problem though, is without H39, 41 and 42 they lack any Tier 5 battleships (Bismarck and Tirpitz are Tier 4 easy, with North Carolina and South Dakota).

yep this actually CAN Be seen at WoWS... Bismarck is Tier VIII... Tier IX is a H-39/42 pseudy hybrid and Tier X is a pseudo H42 with german turret desings that were ordered by the Russians... just so that they could keep their "46cm guns and nothing bigger" rule

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RohmMohc said:

yes but we also have 1 nation VS 2 others or 1 VS 1... if we get a naval battle where one has a carrier and can reload/refuel planes while the others will simply drop dread... overall the mixed games bring up another problem... if one side is mostly planes (fighters) their ships might be wrecked... on the other hand if one side has nearly no planes...

Luckily Germany has enough carrier designs for all 5 tiers, but that's it. Nothing to spread them around the BR's. Russia in terms of Carriers I think are in a more sorry state than their battleships.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CV, except very weird and/or special case, will never be playable.

 

What will be a gameplay of such units ? Running away from any attacker & "cooperate with teammate" ? Really ? Cooperation in WarThunder ?

The idea to make a gameplay "battlestation like" or "wows like" is also unbelievable.

 

+ about the Yamato & the Iowa:

They are super-battleship; no all nations have these kind of unit and they can't be opponent to such units. Doing like WoWs is once again unbelievable and I will be happy to never see them playable.

Try to imagine the glorious matchmaking with Aircraft Carrier & Super-Battleship:
" 15x Yamato and 1x schnellboot are facing 6x HMS Ark Royal & 10x Iowa "
Wouah, so much fun !

 

I would prefer, instead of you, talking about the nearest branches we could see more than talking about super-big creature you will be only able to shoot at during the first time.

Edited by Umbriellan
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RohmMohc said:

yes but we also have 1 nation VS 2 others or 1 VS 1... if we get a naval battle where one has a carrier and can reload/refuel planes while the others will simply drop dread... overall the mixed games bring up another problem... if one side is mostly planes (fighters) their ships might be wrecked... on the other hand if one side has nearly no planes...

yep this actually CAN Be seen at WoWS... Bismarck is Tier VIII... Tier IX is a H-39/42 pseudy hybrid and Tier X is a pseudo H42 with german turret desings that were ordered by the Russians... just so that they could keep their "46cm guns and nothing bigger" rule

You will simply always have USN or IJN carriers among your allies. ;) 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, RohmMohc said:

small problem: if CVs get playable and we have maps where one side DOENST have an airfield while the other needs CVs...and one ofc those nations is germany.. they either wont be able to rearm etc. or wont have any planes... see the problems?

I'm not entirely sure as to whether or not CVs should be playable anyway, we will have to see how that plays out. As for possible issues, that is inevitable when one tree specializes in one thing that another tree does not. You start to run into situations where one tree has an advantage under certain conditions. While this isn't necessarily a problem, just something that comes with the territory, you do have to take that into account when designing maps and mission objectives.

 

Besides, Germany has a few CV designs that can be added, such as the Graf Zeppelin:

Graf-Zeppelin-2.jpg

They may not have been fully completed but since they were laid down I think it is ok to add them.

Edited by Mercedes4321
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Umbriellan said:

CV, except very weird and/or special case, will never be playable.

 

What will be a gameplay of such units ? Running away from any attacker & "cooperate with teammate" ? Really ? Cooperation in WarThunder ?

The idea to make a gameplay "battlestation like" or "wows like" is also unbelievable.

 

+ about the Yamato & the Iowa:

They are super-battleship; no all nations have these kind of unit and they can't be opponent to such units. Doing like WoWs is once again unbelievable and I will be happy to never see them playable.

Try to imagine the glorious matchmaking with Aircraft Carrier & Super-Battleship:
" 15x Yamato and 1x schnellboot are facing 6x HMS Ark Royal & 10x Iowa "
Wouah, so much fun !

 

I prefer, instead of you, talking about the nearest branches we could see more than talking about super-big creature you will be only able to shoot at during the first time.

I disagree.

Germany: H41 & 42

Britain: Lion (9 and 12 gun (still need source for it))

US: Iowa and Montana

Japan: Amagi and Yamato

Russia: Sovetsky Soyuz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mercedes4321 said:

I'm not entirely sure as to whether or not CVs should be playable anyway, we will have to see how that plays out.

 

i do agree with this... just to many problems could arise... the MM would need to be adjusted that both sides ALWAYS have carriers... and so on...

 

4 minutes ago, SqnLdrAhsokaTano said:

I disagree.

Germany: H41 & 42

Britain: Lion (9 and 12 gun (still need source for it))

US: Iowa and Montana

Japan: Amagi and Yamato

Russia: Sovetsky Soyuz

 

Amagi is a battlecruiser though... rather thinly armoured... i could see a Scharnhorst ripping it to shreds with fast firing 28s

Edited by RohmMohc
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carriers as such... I may don't have the best idea, but their planes should be of real players and their results of shooting down enemies or succesfully attacking other ships could come as reward for the CV captain. Basically, you would be rewarded, because you were able to stay alive throughout the match and such.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, RohmMohc said:

small problem: if CVs get playable and we have maps where one side DOENST have an airfield while the other needs CVs...and one ofc those nations is germany.. they either wont be able to rearm etc. or wont have any planes... see the problems?

 

Germany did have 2 aircraft carrier under construction and later cancelled

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graf_Zeppelin-class_aircraft_carrier)

 

At least one was finished enough to be put in game, the only ones without a carrier are the USSR

 

my point was already made.... dame

Edited by twoand900
updated
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SqnLdrAhsokaTano said:

I disagree.

Germany: H41 & 42 = glorious paper

Britain: Lion (9 and 12 gun (still need source for it)) = glorious paper

US: Iowa and Montana = super-battleship

Japan: Amagi and Yamato = super-battleship

Russia: Sovetsky Soyuz = 21% build hurray !

 

That's ridiculous. You don't want paper-plane, but you ask for paper-"tank" and now the ships too must use fantasy ?

And what about Italy ? Roma is at a Bismarck level - same thing for the (french) Jean-Bart.

 

So you will put two over-powered units in the era 5 (" 2 to rule them all " as said a devil black [noracism] guy who become a single floating eye) ?

Edited by Umbriellan
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maze94 said:

Carriers as such... I may don't have the best idea, but their planes should be of real players and their results of shooting down enemies or succesfully attacking other ships could come as reward for the CV captain. Basically, you would be rewarded, because you were able to stay alive throughout the match and such.

This could work, could also allow the use for Seaplane tenders as well within the battle. But it would require an increase in players per battle.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in regards of pilots in Ship battles i think we actually need more or less 2 player lists... lets go with the current max amount of players 16 (i would actually increase that...) 16 VS 16 Ships and then planes seperately because that could end up problematic

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Umbriellan said:

 

That's ridiculous. You don't want paper-plane, you ask for paper-"tank" and now the ships too must use fantasy ?

And what about Italy ? Roma is at a Bismarck level - same thing for the (french) Jean-Bart.

 

So you will put two over-powered units in the era 5 (" 2 to rule them all " as said a devil black [noracism] guys who become a single floating eye) ?

I want to see Paper planes, Tanks and Ships where they are needed. And at Tier 5, they are needed for Battleships.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Umbriellan said:

 

That's ridiculous. You don't want paper-plane, but you ask for paper-"tank" and now the ships too must use fantasy ?

And what about Italy ? Roma is at a Bismarck level - same thing for the (french) Jean-Bart.

 

So you will put two over-powered units in the era 5 (" 2 to rule them all " as said a devil black [noracism] guys who become a single floating eye) ?

Ships are actually a tad of a difference... Battleships only seldomly have prototypes built... they get the specifications and will end up to those mostly... because they are friggin expensive...

 

if we have Atlantic battles and end up with RN and US VS Kriegsmarine in realism because stuff n stuff and have Bismarck VS Montana... Much fun...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RohmMohc said:

in regards of pilots in Ship battles i think we actually need more or less 2 player lists... lets go with the current max amount of players 16 (i would actually increase that...) 16 VS 16 Ships and then planes seperately because that could end up problematic

Worth experimenting in events, similar to how we have the Confrontation modes.

Just now, RohmMohc said:

Ships are actually a tad of a difference... Battleships only seldomly have prototypes built... they get the specifications and will end up to those mostly... because they are friggin expensive...

 

if we have Atlantic battles and end up with RN and US VS Kriegsmarine in realism because stuff n stuff and have Bismarck VS Montana... Much fun...

Besides that, Bismarck fits easily at Tier 4.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, SqnLdrAhsokaTano said:

Carriers I don't think will be in the game for the reason of terrible plane AI.

 

And the Soviet Union can into Battleships, just mostly captured Italian Battleships. Japan actually suffers the same problem in terms of Jet's.

 

The game mechanics and the focus of the Soviets on captured or lease ships are kind of a bad idea. It wouldn't matter, the lacking of soviet capital ships will not suffice the Soviet tech tree as they have superior frontline bombers. Substituting this along with a couple of captured ships and you got a superior tree.

 

For carriers I would prefer to be  player controlled, even though it has terrible A.i, its fixable. Ai improvements would be one thing and 

would dramatically improve gameplay, this would make the games hard as Ai will know what to do and will be adaptable to situations because let's face it, Ai in this game is pretty terrible. 

 

my proposal on how it would probably work

Let's say for carriers we have a squad, 1 player controlling the CV and a couple of Ai fighters that could be controlled by the player, with other players on carrier-borne fighters, bombers etc accompanied by them. The game could then (depending on the scenario) instruct orders to the players on what to do, players could bomb or cover the bombers for extra points or engage enemy fighters.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, SqnLdrAhsokaTano said:

We are only getting Boats for the time being, with larger ships being worked on per size.

 

In which world does "We don't want them and we don't plan to implement them. But it is not 100% ruled out." equal "being worked on"

 

40 minutes ago, Pappina said:

Most of us are anti-boatthunder, and want our big capital ship.

 

So am/do I, but it's not going to happen. Face it. Boats Boats Boats is all we will get.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kamuka said:

 

In which world does "We don't want them and we don't plan to implement them. But it is not 100% ruled out." equal "being worked on"

 

They never said that. Read the Q&A again please.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SqnLdrAhsokaTano said:

I want to see Paper planes, Tanks and Ships where they are needed. And at Tier 5, they are needed for Battleships.

 

As said the headquarter : there will be an evolution in the available gameplay -

fast-boat > light ship > medium ship > big ship

You don't know if it will be even possible for cruisers to come (the DD will, it will be idiotic to reject them with their own arguments) - they are afraid of the biggest ship and you're asking for both "big & fantasy" ...

 

11 minutes ago, RohmMohc said:

Ships are actually a tad of a difference... Battleships only seldomly have prototypes built... they get the specifications and will end up to those mostly... because they are friggin expensive...

if we have Atlantic battles and end up with RN and US VS Kriegsmarine in realism because stuff n stuff and have Bismarck VS Montana... Much fun...

 

Ships are differents... because we can easily go in the 70's and take what they offer there. Sticking with the "biggest of them all" is an error.

+ asking to a compagny proud of itself about "realism" to insert "pure fantasy" will gain only "facepalm".

 

In your exemple: it's irrealistic to talk about Montana vs Bismarck, because the Montana was specificaly made to fight the King of the Sea " Yamato ". A mission " USN vs IJN " using their monster should be fun.

But giving to the players the ability to take out the Yamato is showing that you need to go back to Arkham: do you remember how many guns this thing has ? The player will be able to use all of them manualy ! Only on of them will wreck your entire team by it's own - letting his team to drink sake while doing jokes on you and allies...

Edited by Umbriellan
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SqnLdrAhsokaTano said:

I disagree.

Germany: H41 & 42

Britain: Lion (9 and 12 gun (still need source for it))

US: Iowa and Montana

Japan: Amagi and Yamato

Russia: Sovetsky Soyuz

 

The lion class bb's that construction actually commenced on were to be armed with 9 16inch guns but the 1942 redesign toyed with the idea of 12 16inch guns but that didn't come to much. Trying to find a source for this but having issues finding one that can be trusted i.e. not Wikipedia and I have no books on the subject so for the moment disregard the 12x 16inch gun Lion's. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ghost_Rider12 said:

 

The lion class bb's that construction actually commenced on were to be armed with 9 16inch guns but the 1942 redesign toyed with the idea of 12 16inch guns but that didn't come to much. Trying to find a source for this but having issues finding one that can be trusted i.e. not Wikipedia and I have no books on the subject so for the moment disregard the 12x 16inch gun Lion's. 

I'm going to keep with the idea of the 12x16" Lions, seems interesting assuming they actually exist in design.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Umbriellan said:

 

In your exemple: it's irrealistic to talk about Montana vs Bismarck, because the Montana was specificaly made to fight the King of the Sea " Yamato ". A mission " USN vs IJN " using their monster should be fun.

Montana wasn't designed to counter Yamato.

 

1 minute ago, SqnLdrAhsokaTano said:

I'm going to keep with the idea of the 12x16" Lions, seems interesting assuming they actually exist in design.

I would like to see it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.