Multiplayer or bust

[RAMJB]

38 minutes ago, Kasuga said:

Planes? in a ship? BURN THEM BEFORE LAY EGGS!!!! 💥

I prefer first game move backward and cover pre 1900 ships, apart add more models and even WWII models, here i want the WWII CA models and Yubari 💖

Judging by the presence of certain techs in the game, I'm betting FOR SURE, that it's starting point is going to be at the very least one decade before the turn of XX century.

Black powder and iron armor plates?...that stuff was woefully obsolete already by the 1890s...so I guess is a pretty good guess that the game will at the very least cover that date.

[Kasuga]

When i say pre 1900 i think in the "dark" period between first armored ship to the complete set of 1898-1905 ships... well and all the french WTF is this ships 😁

If campaign works fine imagine one starting in... 1850-60 until 1900, here even small nations could be playable and more small to medium conflicts could be fun... more design ships to made other nation build them for you, with politic warfare, you can pay to delay enemy ships and oposite.

Something i want see is that UA:D be a BASE GAME where you can install future new content instead have 2 or more different games installed, like in other games you launch it, enter and select the campaign you want and is possible avoid multiple installs.

PD: yep, japanese late war CLs were really fine but i have special love for Yubari is so.... kawaiiiii 💋

 

[TAKTCOM]

1 hour ago, Kasuga said:

i have special love for Yubari is so.... kawaiiiii 💋

Yes, she is wonderful

Edited November 25, 2019 by TAKTCOM

[RAMJB]

15 hours ago, Kasuga said:

When i say pre 1900 i think in the "dark" period between first armored ship to the complete set of 1898-1905 ships... well and all the french WTF is this ships 😁

If campaign works fine imagine one starting in... 1850-60 until 1900

 

That's pushing it a bit. By that time lots of navies still had some kind of sail-centric warships, even the most advanced ones having a mix of steam/sails. To bring those, the game should model sail ship wind mechanics, which I think is quite a huge waste of time all things considered. Don't take me wrong, I also would love to see a game focused on that era because of how awkward some designs were, how fast technology advanced and how many interesting and weird designs existed. I just don't see how it could happen without making things too complicated. 

1880-1890 seems like a quite good starting date to me. No need to bother with wind mechanics, and it's also more or less the era where the torpedo came into the scene as a viable weapon (I know Whitehead had been building torpedoes before that, but those were far too slow and close ranged to be truly useful.

Edited November 26, 2019 by RAMJB

[Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf]

On 11/25/2019 at 7:52 AM, TAKTCOM said:

As a person who has played thousands of hours on TV and hundreds of hours in Armada, I clearly see that the popularity of the multiplayer is completely inadequate for the resources spent on it. No one needs multiplayer if the main game mode is sandbox. But no, someone must shoot himself in the foot, time after time.

Did he say anything about the further development of the series? I am impressed with their ability to merge all their successes into the toilet.

 

Well, BFGA2 was an improvement (helped with the German translation of BFGA1 & was on the DLC/patch test team "Emperors Elite" xD), but yeah, aiming for MP with a game that is definitely made for singleplayer was...at least questionable. Told them this from the beta of BFGA1 on.

Nope, nothing on this. They are working on "something he can't tell". So there will be more, probably one or two campaign DLCs and most likely a third game set around the Indomitus Crusade as BFGA2 was a commercial, if not design success.

[Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf]

On 11/25/2019 at 7:20 AM, RAMJB said:

You must be effin' kidding me. Is that true?.

DarthMods were the only thing that made TW games attractive to me. They were so, so, so, SO damned good in bringing at least a decent ammount of immersion to those games. I enjoyed RTW like nothing else just because that mod alone.

I had faith in this game, now I have a lot more

Yupp, Nick Thomadis is Darth himself.^^ I like to think the Ultimate Strategy games are his way to give Creative Assembly a kick in the butt for not hiring him as AI dev. xD Fine by me, Total War seriously needs a competitor.

[Latur Husky]

6 hours ago, RAMJB said:

That's pushing it a bit. By that time lots of navies still had some kind of sail-centric warships, even the most advanced ones having a mix of steam/sails. To bring those, the game should model sail ship wind mechanics, which I think is quite a huge waste of time all things considered. Don't take me wrong, I also would love to see a game focused on that era because of how awkward some designs were, how fast technology advanced and how many interesting and weird designs existed. I just don't see how it could happen without making things too complicated. 

1880-1890 seems like a quite good starting date to me. No need to bother with wind mechanics, and it's also more or less the era where the torpedo came into the scene as a viable weapon (I know Whitehead had been building torpedoes before that, but those were far too slow and close ranged to be truly useful.

When you enter Campaign menu you'll notice that earliest starting date that can be currently selected is 1890. Too bad the game won't load when you press start xD

[fsp]

What I want from this game is bascially RTW2 (or rather RTW1 as it looks) in 3D with some nice improvements.

Looking at where development has gone so far, at the previous titles and at what they have advertised, it's obvious this is never going to be an open world game, a sandbox or god beware an MMOG.

Hoping that my judgement is right here, I bought the game and what I have seen so far has surely convinced me I did the right thing.

The only thing I wish for is for MP to be included - at the barest minimum of what is possible and with the least amount of ressources taken away from other development areas:

- a simple battle generator, define the era, the countries, ship classes and funds. this should work in SP and MP. No need for complicated balancing, that's between the two players

- the possibility to play the campaign in MP similar to TW. Don't bother with balancing. You will never get it totally right. Have two options for MP campaign: a) all countries equal b) all countries with historical abilities as in the SP campaign. That's it.

While I understand that many players don't feel the need for MP and prefer SP experiences, there is one undeniable fact: Having played against other humans, it's just hard to go back to playing the AI. Humans have so many more interesting ideas and ways of playing you that an AI just feels dull after a while. Nothing beats MPing with a decent other human being - one that prefers to have a good game over winning. This is also the reason why most MMOGs are a massive fail in my opinion: because most players just try everything to win instead of having a good gaming experience.

I have made good experiences with games like this one here. You will relatively easily find someone who is more interested in having a good gaming experience than winning. So no need to heavily invest time into balancing, players can make that work.

 

TLDR:
Fully focus on the SP experience and balancing, especially the campaign.

Playing the AI can never give you the same experience as facing another human. Divert a mininium of ressources needed to make MP happen.

Include a SP and MP battle generator. Don't worry about balancing for MP.

Include a MP campaign mode. Don't worry about balancing.

 

[TAKTCOM]

18 hours ago, Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf said:

Well, BFGA2 was an improvement 

There were improvements (battle mechanics), but also degradation (interface and customization). Which is pretty funny, since the multiplayer  Armada 1 strong side was fleet сustomization. In some cases, the developers seemed to forget what they were doing in BFGA1. For example, orz customization mechanics from BFGA1 are ideal for Adeptus Mechanicus from BFGA2. Instead, they begin to invent all sorts of nonsense like "now the Nova-cannons can shoot gravitational anomalies."

18 hours ago, Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf said:

...and most likely a third game set...

I'm kinda curious who will buy it after BFGA1-2 But thanks for the info. I suspected something like that, but it was an analysis of their actions, not a personal conversation. The tandalos are rather mysterious in the forum.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

On 11/22/2019 at 12:46 PM, Punisher_1 said:

Ya, not with that attitude. 

You seem like a triggered mental midget that has completely ignored PC gaming trends over the last decade. One of these "everyone needs a trophy" types ranting about how the game is going to work. Yet totally bashing the idea. Laughably IRL no one cries about "game balance" maybe you should read up on the the Battle of Midway and see how a vastly out numbered and out skilled and dated Naval force turned the tide of the war with superior tactics. 

Simply it was an idea to add to the game for people that want to be competitive and work with others in a massive persistent game. I came here in a positive manner to drop an idea that could grow the game exponentially and appeal to more than a niche player base and was met with nothing but triggered toxic filthy trolls. 

I said positive things about the game and even said i'd invest in it if I had the funds, heck I dropped the $50 just to try it out but I see the community or at least a few of them are toxic and this game will never be anything more than a AI bash fest and that's not appealing to me at all. But I guess it appeals to the few that get a dopamine rush by defeating inferior AI and the like thinking they accomplished something awesome. 

Meh, no for me. 

I like how you type like some sort of 4chan pol right winger, yet you act like the biggest god damned normie tard ever.

You're literally the meme of the retard gamer who wants everything 'new' and 'trendy'.

Multiplayer is out of this game's context, at most you'd get LAN to play with a friend.

You're currently the most toxic I can see on this entire forum, and considering who "I" am, that's a god damned acomplishment.

[Steeltrap]

Having been a Beta tester of WoT back in 2010 plus played for a few years including clan wars and the lot, then Alpha tester through release of WoWS which I stopped playing maybe 6 months after release, I want absolutely NOTHING that reminds me of WG or WoWS.

I already think HE is grossly over effective, and that reminds me of WoWS. Plus most large gun calibre ships didn't carry much if any 'HE' ammo.

I also don't like this emphasis on "angling" etc, plus hidden stats that directly affect armouring (there are certain things in the ship builder that affect "angling and effectiveness of armour" yet there's no way of knowing how or to what extent), because they remind me of WoT AND WoWS. Reality is you unmask your broadside and let fly with everything you've got. The only reason not to do so is because you wish either to open or close the range. All this angling crap pisses me off.

That doesn't mean I'm against things like co-op or even multiplayer campaigns, or equally setting up 1v1 battles.

But keep anything that remotely smells of WoWS or any sort of MMO 'experience' the hell away from the game. As I said above, there are already elements that stink of WoWS to the detriment of this game.

[ThatZenoGuy]

1 hour ago, Steeltrap said:

I already think HE is grossly over effective, and that reminds me of WoWS. Plus most large gun calibre ships didn't carry much if any 'HE' ammo.

Nothing like a single 5 inch shell in WOWS deleting 25% of a Yamato's health, because apparently 70 thousand tons of ship lacks fire fighting equipment apart from a single use burst every half a decade.

[RAMJB]

9 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

I also don't like this emphasis on "angling" etc, plus hidden stats that directly affect armouring (there are certain things in the ship builder that affect "angling and effectiveness of armour" yet there's no way of knowing how or to what extent), because they remind me of WoT AND WoWS. Reality is you unmask your broadside and let fly with everything you've got. The only reason not to do so is because you wish either to open or close the range. All this angling crap pisses me off.

 

It can piss you off. It should not. Even rather thin armor plate can deflect very big projectiles if hit at an oblique enough angle. Not to mention, angle of impact does matter on thick plates because angled armor (as we all know) offers increased effective thickness than when struck perpendicular. Somethign well know, after all, because whole layout schemes abused that mechanism (From the turtleback schemes popular before WW1 to the inclined armored belts of some of the american fast battleships)

So while the whole "overmatch" in WOWs is pretty much BS, truth is that angling offers obvious benefits in what regards to protection. If you see them in game, good, because they were very real.

Now were they so "real" as to cause big armored warships to go nose in against an enemy to fire forward weapons only?. Of course not, for many reasons (the minor not being that, again, the overmatch mechanic in WOWs is, even when based on a real effect, in effect tailored BS for an arcade game balance). Let's list some of them:

1- The obvious one. you cut your main battery by half, or 33%, or even 60% (depends on the layout). In a statistical "game" such as naval gunnery, where the mechanics of hitting at anything but point blank can be summed up as "putting as many projectiles on a box as small as possible where the enemy ship will be when they arrive", if you decrease the number of projectiles you're putting in, you're drastically reducing your chances to hit.

2- Not such an obvious one: Finding a solution on a ship requires finding out three variables. Range. Course. Speed. With that data you can aim your guns with high chances of hitting. The problem is that finding them in the middle of a battle is troublesome. Without any intervention of electronics (radar), you use rangefinders to estimate range. You use lenght of ship vs time of travel to estimate speed. You use mostly eyeball mk.1 to find out course. All of them are, in the end, estimations. All of them have to be calculated by individuals who can make mistakes, based on information gathered in a very confused environment (the middle of a battle). Then you feed it into a plotting machine (an analog computer, there were several versions of the same concept, in general they were called "rangekeepers"). Plotting machine tells you the solution and where to fire.

 So when you fire you're validating your estimations and see if they are right. But they will be wrong, because it's almost impossible to get all the variables right on the first go. So you watch where your shot falls compared with where the enemy is when they fall. You and your plotter juggle a bit to find out which of your estimation (or which ones, can be multiple) was off. You correct. Plotter tells you where to fire. You fire again. Etc.

But it just so happens that if an enemy that you're firing on is pointed straight at you, or with minimal lateral displacement. calculating a firing solution is a whooping order of magnitude easier than finding the same solution on a target with a large lateral displacement. Essentially he's telegraphing your course to you (because he's coming for you, you know which course he has).
So in effect by sailing straight for the enemy you're giving away one of your solution variables (course) as solved by default, thus making FAR easier for the enemy to find the proper solution to shove projectiles down your throat, as you're decreasing the complexity of his solution calculation by a whole order of magnitude.


3- Very not obvious one: Ships tend to roll with far more ease than they tend to pitch. Or said in other words: when broadsiding unless you're on really stormy weather your whole battery will be firing roughly on the same plane. Firing on end-on targets means that depending on the moment of the roll the guns on one side of the turret will actually be aimed higher than the other (because of roll, one is somewhat higher, other somewha lower), ruining your dispersion - and the longer the range, the more it gets ruined.


4-"angling" and betting that you'll be getting some lucky bounces on thin plate here and there is pretty nice - only problem is that the main side armor tends to be MUCH thicker than the end-on transverse bulkheads. So in most cases and armor layouts, by going nose in you're actually increasing the chance of the enemy placing shells within your critical spaces.

There are more here and there but I think the point is made: YES there are some very notable benefits angling can give to your protection scheme vs enemies.

But NO, you don't want to "angle" against an enemy. Because then he'll eat you alive. So the solution here is not "getting rid of the angling". Is implementing the reasons why that "angling" was a horrible, horrible, horrible idea to begin with (I'm not sure 2 and 3 are present in the game right now, but I'm pretty sure in due time everything that's relevant will be in place to make the experience as immersive and believable as possible).

Edited December 6, 2019 by RAMJB

[The Fundamentalist]

On 11/26/2019 at 7:12 AM, fsp said:

MP to be included - at the barest minimum of what is possible and with the least amount of ressources taken away

Imagine building a name off of about a decade of refined, quality product and then attaching some garbage afterthought to it just as that name begins to gain some notoriety.

Imagine making a game specifically to be a sandbox, DIY "build your own navy" game and then not include that in the multiplayer. 

Imagine having a very small team already divided on multiple games, and then dividing that attention even more for some garbage afterthought that was never a goal of the product. 

Imagine thinking that the effort required for a decent single player game is even remotely comparable to a garbage multiplayer experience. 
 

At what point is this supposed to be a win for the developer? You whine for what would be a massive manpower and financial undertaking, yet offer no benefits besides giving you a "good gaming experience". 

 

[RAMJB]

2 hours ago, The Fundamentalist said:

 

At what point is this supposed to be a win for the developer?
 

some of the ideas presented in this thread aren't either too complex nor demanding on developer time. Allowing MP battles where each player agree on an equal ammount of funds for each one, and year for technology, and let them design their fleets and fight it out shouldn't be neither too resource intensive, nor too complicated to implement at all.

Of course, that should come AFTER everything else needed for the singleplayer modes is in. First things first. But it's a perfectly viable proposal for a further, down the line, game mode. 

Now those about MP campaigns...or worse...MMO-like stuff...yeah, absolutely pointless and worthless.

Edited December 7, 2019 by RAMJB

[brucesim2003]

18 hours ago, RAMJB said:

Not such an obvious one: Finding a solution on a ship requires finding out three variables. Range. Course. Speed. With that data you can aim your guns with high chances of hitting. The problem is that finding them in the middle of a battle is troublesome. Without any intervention of electronics (radar), you use rangefinders to estimate range. You use lenght of ship vs time of travel to estimate speed. You use mostly eyeball mk.1 to find out course. All of them are, in the end, estimations. All of them have to be calculated by individuals who can make mistakes, based on information gathered in a very confused environment (the middle of a battle). Then you feed it into a plotting machine (an analog computer, there were several versions of the same concept, in general they were called "rangekeepers"). Plotting machine tells you the solution and where to fire.

 So when you fire you're validating your estimations and see if they are right. But they will be wrong, because it's almost impossible to get all the variables right on the first go. So you watch where your shot falls compared with where the enemy is when they fall. You and your plotter juggle a bit to find out which of your estimation (or which ones, can be multiple) was off. You correct. Plotter tells you where to fire. You fire again. Etc.

But it just so happens that if an enemy that you're firing on is pointed straight at you, or with minimal lateral displacement. calculating a firing solution is a whooping order of magnitude easier than finding the same solution on a target with a large lateral displacement. Essentially he's telegraphing your course to you (because he's coming for you, you know which course he has).
So in effect by sailing straight for the enemy you're giving away one of your solution variables (course) as solved by default, thus making FAR easier for the enemy to find the proper solution to shove projectiles down your throat, as you're decreasing the complexity of his solution calculation by a whole order of magnitude.
 

Now if you could post this on the RTW2 forums, that would be great. The dev has a great show of listening to players, unless their ideas are directly opposed to their pre-conceived ideas. Then you are ignored. I tried (and failed miserably) to convince them that RTW2 (and 1) crossing the t accuracy modifier was misplaced.

[RAMJB]

If valuable info has been shown to the devs and they have refused to take well reasoned and presented input in the past, experience goes here to say that they will keep on doing ad infinitum. This is the long way to say that there's no reason to insist beating a dead horse. In a forum where I don't have a very good relationship with the moderation, too.

I'm also reluctant to even lurk in those forums. Too many "experts" talking out of their ... rear end ... and no way to adress them when they come back at you like venomous snakes when you correct any wrong information they post. If you answer like they deserve you get the three strike penalty rule. First a warning, then you're out for 24 hours. I guess the third would be out for good, but I didn't stay long enough to check for it - I just am allergic to forums where sharing valuable information is less important than being forced to be polite with ignorant trolls, so after I was 24 hour banned for finally snapping against a troll who was acting like a douche and telling him he was being one, I just lost any incentive to keep even visiting that place anymore. I understand the need to be civil in a public forum. I also understand that if in a given forum the need to keep the trolls at bay is actually penalized just for the sake of the former, it's a place I don't want to stay. So, I didn't stay.


TL:DR: nah, I'll pass on that one.

Edited December 7, 2019 by RAMJB

[brucesim2003]

1 hour ago, RAMJB said:

TL:DR: nah, I'll pass on that one.

Can't say I blame you. 😀

[Cptbarney]

8 hours ago, RAMJB said:

If valuable info has been shown to the devs and they have refused to take well reasoned and presented input in the past, experience goes here to say that they will keep on doing ad infinitum. This is the long way to say that there's no reason to insist beating a dead horse. In a forum where I don't have a very good relationship with the moderation, too.

I'm also reluctant to even lurk in those forums. Too many "experts" talking out of their ... rear end ... and no way to adress them when they come back at you like venomous snakes when you correct any wrong information they post. If you answer like they deserve you get the three strike penalty rule. First a warning, then you're out for 24 hours. I guess the third would be out for good, but I didn't stay long enough to check for it - I just am allergic to forums where sharing valuable information is less important than being forced to be polite with ignorant trolls, so after I was 24 hour banned for finally snapping against a troll who was acting like a douche and telling him he was being one, I just lost any incentive to keep even visiting that place anymore. I understand the need to be civil in a public forum. I also understand that if in a given forum the need to keep the trolls at bay is actually penalized just for the sake of the former, it's a place I don't want to stay. So, I didn't stay.


TL:DR: nah, I'll pass on that one.

Too be honest, i have a limited knowledge on this sort of thing, so reading all these posts and comments plus stories is always cool regardless.

Gaijin has the worst forums i've been on people seem to get warnings and posts removed with little warning half the time (even if they weren't dumb or abusive and well thoughout to some degree).

Hell i even got a warning just for posting two memes cus 3 peeps were having an arguement about CV mechanics in world of warships (btw that bloody thread has reached over 500 pages now.) And they are still going lol.

Never been banned from a forum before, but im kinda surprised sometimes i haven't. Depends on the mods i guess, some wows mods are surprisingly docile, while others are bloody trigger happy.

Discussions are always good means you can find out new info and ways of thinking from both sides and appericate this. Just depends if the person you are talking to isn't some manchild or someone who has some fibre of decency.

The wows forums is a meme at this point too be honest.

[fsp]

20 hours ago, The Fundamentalist said:

Imagine building a name off of about a decade of refined, quality product and then attaching some garbage afterthought to it just as that name begins to gain some notoriety.

Imagine making a game specifically to be a sandbox, DIY "build your own navy" game and then not include that in the multiplayer. 

Imagine having a very small team already divided on multiple games, and then dividing that attention even more for some garbage afterthought that was never a goal of the product. 

Imagine thinking that the effort required for a decent single player game is even remotely comparable to a garbage multiplayer experience. 
 

At what point is this supposed to be a win for the developer? You whine for what would be a massive manpower and financial undertaking, yet offer no benefits besides giving you a "good gaming experience". 

 

At no point could what I originally suggested be called "whining".

Just because you think MP is unnecessary does not mean it is. As long as AI is lacking as badly as it currently is in all strategy or tactical games there are, MP is a necessity to get the most of a game. 

To spell it out once more, just for you:

- no AI can currently give you the gaming experience you have when battling a fellow human being. I'd appreciate it if it did, but it doesn't. 
- thus= AI either cheats or needs an unrealistic amount of assets to be able to compete, which kills immersion
- NO MMO (heavens no)!
- SP development should clearly be prioritised above anything that is MP
 

I love UG: Civil War. I hate the concept of "scaling". While it gives me enjoyable battles, it also takes away the joy of annihilating an enemy army, knowing it will be back to full strength at the next battle, because otherwise of course the campaign would be over after two or three battles.

That's why I ultimately would like a MP campaign experience. Because all the advantages the AI needs kill immersion. For me. That is my subjective POV.

Edited December 7, 2019 by fsp
typo

[admin]

Dear Players.
Please keep it civil and respectful even when talking to an enemy. Remember you are all admirals. 

[Steeltrap]

On 12/7/2019 at 12:40 AM, RAMJB said:

It can piss you off. It should not. Even rather thin armor plate can deflect very big projectiles if hit at an oblique enough angle. Not to mention, angle of impact does matter on thick plates because angled armor (as we all know) offers increased effective thickness than when struck perpendicular. Somethign well know, after all, because whole layout schemes abused that mechanism (From the turtleback schemes popular before WW1 to the inclined armored belts of some of the american fast battleships)

I think you're being a tad selective in how you interpreted what I wrote when you say it should not piss me off. 🤣

I made it clear it was the emphasis, not the mechanism at all. Plus the hidden stats. Both hallmarks of WG.

I do agree on reflection that I probably made too much of a point about angling and that might have made it seem I thought it was illegitimate/irrelevant. I didn't mean that, but I can see how it looked I might have.

Even with that, however, having stats inherent in a hull that "influence armour effectiveness" (or however it's phrased in the ship designer) yet not disclosing what that means is an approach I don't like at all. It's not as though "our naval designers" would have chosen various armour schemes without knowing exactly what they're designed to do, so why hide it from the player?

We also know the "immunity zones" against their own guns was a common design approach, and that the USN 'superheavy' 16" shells, for example, made that difficult to the point they accepted they couldn't achieve the usual breadth of immunity without compromising other aspects of design, and so on.

[As an aside, the Battle of Denmark Strait is a real life example of one of the reasons I mentioned a captain might not be using their full broadside, namely to close the range. They were thoroughly aware of and concerned about Hood's questionable deck armour, especially as she missed a refit that would have had her aft deck armour increased as fore parts had been,  and thus were hoping to close to where it was not likely to be an issue. Doing so would also inevitably increase accuracy, too, and they had 10 more heavy guns in play so all the better. Mind you, it's doubtful her armour was good enough against Bismarck at any range, but that's a different matter. Of course they got monstrously unlucky; it's interesting to wonder what might have happened had the hit had been on the already increased deck armour forward.]

Taken as a whole, I'm sure we're both in agreement as to 'angling' being a thing BUT not something commanders thought about given the other realities. Of course with real life accuracy being what it was, the need to throw as many shells at your target as accurately as you can was far more important than thinking about how the enemy shells specifically might hit you, except in very clear cases such as that I mentioned re Hood v Bismarck.

Anyway, people seemed to like your more detailed commentary, many of the central points being things I've also written about in the "ability to sail in reverse" thread (or whatever it's called). To be clear, I hope you know I'm not reacting as though annoyed with your response. I might just as well have written something similar had I intended to cover the topic in greater depth, and as to whose would be 'better' that's an amusing opportunity for some well intentioned and humorous poking fun at each other as I see it.

My main point, and perhaps I ought to have left it without specifics, was the less anything that hints at WoWS makes its way to this game the happier I will be, and that general principle was in response to the OP.

Cheers

p.s. I wonder how much I'll have to split time between playing myself v watching your inevitable YT videos? LOL

Edited December 8, 2019 by Steeltrap

[RAMJB]

Oh, don't worry, I'm taking no offense in your answer nor I think is out of place. In fact my answer wasn't really adressed at you personally at all, as I already know where you stand, what you seem to like in games and why and that you're familiar with what worked IRL and what didn't. Read my answer more as a general one for lurkers and newcomers that might find the forum at some point. WOWS for better or worse has raised some interest for naval games (although for all the wrong reasons XDDDDD), and a good number of players will have only that background in computer gaming as a resumé of their knowledge (or lack thereof ;)) of dreadnought-era naval warfare topics. They are highly likely to take a look at a thread like this (hey multiplayer, right? ;)), so I thought I'd go to some detail to explain why the fundamental game mechanic of WOWS is all wrong, yet based on some real effects ;).

Also ,let's be real, anyone who has ever played WOWS even if he hasn't a clue about how battleships fought...really hates that stupid angling mechanic to his guts ;). Another reason to explain that some angling has a place in some situations that allow for it but that the extreme ridiculous "let's park here and show my bow unless there's a smolensk around" so-called "tactic" wasn't a thing in real fighting, and is not going to be a thing here.

Maybe I should've made clear that I wasn't adressing you directly, which I didn't, but yeah, that message wasn't trying to be kind of a "JFYI" thingie for lurkers and newcomers to find and read.

Which is, BTW, something I do a lot. A lot of people take some kind of offense or dislike that I point out a factual error in one of their posts, or that I take a fact they mention just as a passing thought and expand it in detail. In general, unless it's in a continuous discussion where it's clear I'm answering a particular person, my posts tend to be for the general reader to get more information out of it, it's not meant for someone who already knows a lot about the topic. Of course won't be the first time that the person whose quote I use as a base to expand in my posts comes back and calls me "pedantic"... Oh well. I guess people have thin skins nowadays.

I guess I'm grateful I learned a lot of things this way - my first real understanding and deep dive into how warships of this era worked came when I got into the BBvsBB boards of Navweaps.org, (then warships1.com) reading people making long detailed posts back in the very early 2000s - that got me deeply interested in the topic and is when I began looking for all the books I currently own about the topic xD. Again, I know a lot of people take some kind of offense that I do that kind of stuff but...well. their problem, I guess not mine ;).

Edited December 8, 2019 by RAMJB

[RAMJB]

And I'm just waiting for alpha 3 before I begin making videos again ;). Was about to edit my first one when the announcement came and I decided it wasn't really worth making anything out of a soon-to-be-outdated version where so many things are about to change ;).

[Cptbarney]

Alright ladz lets calm it down.