World of Warships

[Berkut]

Well, for some of them I don't think you CAN come up with ten reasonable ships that work without getting into fantasy. Like the German battleships.

Sure you can.  A couple of predreads, the five dreads, Scharnhorst, Bismarck, and a fully-kitted-out (esp radars) 1943 Tirpitz.

But they have to work with the existing lines as well.

The US and Japanese BBs are already there, so how do you put a 1943 Tirpitz up against a Montana and Yamato at Tier X? Either you turn it into fantasy Tirpitz, or you just create fantasy Kurfurst. It is fantasy either way, because it isn't just a matter of coming up with ten BBs, you have to come up with ten that fit in with the other ten US BBs, and the ten IJN BBs.

It's a lot easier just to create imaginary ships, though.  I can imagine it sells better to their target audience, as well.

I doubt it is any easier, or sells better. Most people find the paper ships much less interesting than the real ones. Whats the fun in arguing about the relative merits of a ship that never even existed? Nobody gets as jazzed up about the Montana as much as the Yamato, for example.

[Berkut]

I actually think this is why my favorite line in the game is the US Battleship line. They were all actual ships, or at least ships that were relatively plausible, designed, and intended to be built for the Montana.

[CountDeMoney]

Japanese destroyers are the Gnome Rouges Rogues of WoW.  NURF EM I SAY

[dps]

More-or-less.  Keep in mind that the American Tier 10 cruiser is the Des Moines.  What would the non-fantasy equivalent be for any other navy?

Why would you use Des Moines if the only conceivable opponents are ships you just make up? Why not stop with Baltimore/PzEugen/Later Town/Algerie/Bolzano/Kirov?  Work backwards from there.

Other than the fact that I want to sail in the Des Moines (if I keep any interest in the game long enough to work my way up to it), and I suppose that others do too, no reason. 

Also, I think it's a bit disingenuous to label many of the ships in that game "fantasy" ships.  Most of them would better be labelled "hypothetical" IMO.  As best as I can tell, they all existed at least on paper, and construction was actually started on some of them. (I do agree that the top tier German BBs in the game are reasonably labelled "fantasy"--even though there were design studies for them, actually building them was a pipe dream).

On the general point, though, I'd be perfectly happy with battleship lines starting with pre-Dreadnoughts.

[CountDeMoney]

On the general point, though, I'd be perfectly happy with battleship lines starting with pre-Dreadnoughts.

But then we'd never be able to play with all those storied Soviet navy classes.  I mean, talk about full immersion into history.

[Berkut]

On the general point, though, I'd be perfectly happy with battleship lines starting with pre-Dreadnoughts.

But then we'd never be able to play with all those storied Soviet navy classes.  I mean, talk about full immersion into history.

I can't wait for the Soviet carrier line!

[grumbler]

But they have to work with the existing lines as well.

The US and Japanese BBs are already there, so how do you put a 1943 Tirpitz up against a Montana and Yamato at Tier X?

Why would you want to?  Why does Yamato have to be in the game at all, if it cannot be matched by any warship ever built (not true, BTW, but let's just assume that it is)?  Alternatively, if you think that you have to have Yamato in the game, why not just make up stats for the guns and armor on, say, Richelieu, so that rich stands a chance?  Maybe make the guns shoot twice as fast, or something like that.  I've seen plenty of examples of them making up numbers for rates of fire or damage in order to be 'competitive" just in looking at the tier 1 cruisers.

And, if you are allowing fantasy ships, why not Super-Duper Yamato, or even Super-Super-Duper-Duper Yamato with 12x 21" guns and 21"/12" of side/deck armor?

Either you turn it into fantasy Tirpitz, or you just create fantasy Kurfurst. It is fantasy either way, because it isn't just a matter of coming up with ten BBs, you have to come up with ten that fit in with the other ten US BBs, and the ten IJN BBs.

My point is that you don't have to create fantasy anything.  Your point here is mine:  if you are not going to limit yourself to what was possible, why have anything that actually existed at all? 

I doubt it is any easier, or sells better. Most people find the paper ships much less interesting than the real ones. Whats the fun in arguing about the relative merits of a ship that never even existed? Nobody gets as jazzed up about the Montana as much as the Yamato, for example.

If the terms of the discussion are the terms of game merit, though, isn't the discussion kind of pointless?  Game battles and tactics don't seem to at all reflect what the ships were designed for.  The Iowas, for instance, were optimized for long-range gun duels, and they were designed with the speed to keep the range long.  Once the Mk 13 GFCS radar was fitted, it was lights out for the Yamato.  I suspect that, in the game, the Iowa stands no chance against Yamato.

[Berkut]

No, Iowas stand as good a chance against the Yamato as any Tier IX has against a Tier X. It has range on the Yamato at least.

It is a team game though, you are generally not fighting alone, but if there was a 1-1 match between the two, the Yamato would win more often than not, skill being equal, certainly.

But then, the Montana will win more often than not against the IJN tier IX - that is the nature of the game.

I don't really understand your question about why the Yamato is in the game. It is a game about WW2ish naval surface combat - why would you NOT have the Yamato in the game? It is the end game IJN battleship. It matches up against the Montana, then end game US battleship.

I am not sure I understand your complaint here - the game is a game first, and not much of a simulation at all. It has the theme and "flavor" of naval combat, but isn't trying to be anything beyond that. It is a lot of fun, IMO.

I think it would be MORE fun if they tried harder to be more historically aligned, but I get that I am probably a small minority of their player base. You, as someone who really, really enjoys naval history, would likely NOT enjoy the game, because the liberties taken would drive you up the wall.

But given what it is, I think the choices they have made in regards to making it all fit together as a game are pretty reasonable. The Yamato doesn't have 12 21" guns because there is no reason to make such a thing, it would not fit into the game world. They have established what the "end game" super battleship should be, and it is something roughly equivalent to a IJN Yamato/US Montana and are balanced against each other.

Believe me, I totally understand that in real life, the Iowa's would likely eat a Yamato for lunch if the US were able to dictate the terms of the fight. Radar fire control along with the beginnings of ballistic computers trumps gun size, I am sure. Not to mention radically superior damage control, better training, superior ammunition, etc. etc.

[grumbler]

I don't really understand your question about why the Yamato is in the game. It is a game about WW2ish naval surface combat - why would you NOT have the Yamato in the game? It is the end game IJN battleship. It matches up against the Montana, then end game US battleship.

I don't understand this answer; if WoW was about WW2-ish naval combat, it wouldn't have Montana, which wasn't a WW2-ish battleship (nor any battleship at all, ever).  If you are going to argue that Yamato must be there because every battleship class must be there, where is the Tennessee class?

It doesn't matter, though.  The game does what it does because the developers think that is what will sell.  It's kinda like the Japanese anime with the little girls dressed in battleship costumes:  it doesn't have to make sense to me to make money!

And you are entitled to enjoy it for what it is, not for what I think it should be.

[Ed Anger]

I identify as a Atago class cruiser.

My preferred pronoun is "CA'.

[CountDeMoney]

I identify as a Atago class cruiser.

My preferred pronoun is "CA'.

What a fag.

[dps]

I don't really understand your question about why the Yamato is in the game. It is a game about WW2ish naval surface combat - why would you NOT have the Yamato in the game? It is the end game IJN battleship. It matches up against the Montana, then end game US battleship.

I don't understand this answer

A failing on your part, not on Berkut's part nor on the part of the game's designers.

It's one thing not to agree with their design choices (I don't agree with a lot of them), but not understanding what Berkut posted seems to be being willfully obtuse to me.

[Ed Anger]

I identify as a Atago class cruiser.

My preferred pronoun is "CA'.

What a fag.

I'm hot!

[grumbler]

A failing on your part, not on Berkut's part nor on the part of the game's designers.

It's one thing not to agree with their design choices (I don't agree with a lot of them), but not understanding what Berkut posted seems to be being willfully obtuse to me.

Your inability to understand MY arguments seems willfully obtuse, as well.  A failing, to reverse your argument, on your part.  Whatever.

[dps]

A failing on your part, not on Berkut's part nor on the part of the game's designers.

It's one thing not to agree with their design choices (I don't agree with a lot of them), but not understanding what Berkut posted seems to be being willfully obtuse to me.

Your inability to understand MY arguments seems willfully obtuse, as well.  A failing, to reverse your argument, on your part.  Whatever.

Well, I suppose that would be the case, except that I do understand your arguments, and as I said, agree with some of them.