Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

I'll be happy with a more simulated approach, but even still i dont expect this to be 1:1 scale. The appeal of this game to me is how fleshed out are the ship designs and relation to its realism. I wasnt interested in the game when i thought it was going to be arcade create your battleship and pitch them into random battles type of game, but heard its going to be indepth naval strategy game with building mechanics i was sold.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 439
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hello Admirals,   We would like to share news about the progress we have so far and the status of the upcoming update.   The team’s reorganizat

We clearly need information about ongoing things. Personaly I want to know whats going on. We waited a lot. Just a small announcement would be great. We need hype.

Guys, please do not worry. Patch is under testing   The final changelog will be released as soon as we release the update.

Posted Images

Think some people are reading too much into the term "simulator" due to approaching it as a gaming term instead of a generic term. Yes gaming simulators seek to reproduce specific platforms/environments but that doesn't imply they are realistic either.

So no this game isn't simulating command of a Yamato class battleship, but we are simulating the environment and physics that gave birth to it.

And that is what everyone really wants. The chance to be the designer/chief of navy/admiral in that simulated world. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, madham82 said:

So no this game isn't simulating command of a Yamato class battleship, but we are simulating the environment and physics that gave birth to it.

Agreed, except the problem as it stands is we are NOT doing that, not even close.

It's still not clear to me what the "it's not meant to be a sim" minded people think of the list of issues I've pointed out. Do none of them trouble them? To be clear, I am not meaning that as any sort of slight for those less interested in somewhat more realistic mechanics, I'm simply curious as to how far from any claim to realism the game needs to be before it will trouble them.

As I've said many, many times, I don't expect "realism" because there's no such thing with today's technology. But I won't accept blatant, immersion-wrecking absurdities, either. ESPECIALLY when there is little to no excuse for them being present in many cases; it's not as though many of these things aren't relatively well documented aspects such as gunnery control, manoeuvrability, shell performance and so on.

Here's something I wrote 4 months ago on the whole concept:

As to expectations, there have been direct quotes as to how the game is being marketed on Steam. If they're going to talk about...

a unique opportunity to design and build countless variations of realistic looking warships combined with extremely in depth realistic combat model

...then those are the bases on which they are inviting customers to judge them. Both the ability to design and build ships, AND an extremely in depth realistic combat model. Not one or the other, BOTH.

If they deliver a product that's potentially anything but in the minds of a significant number of potential customers, whether the perceived failure is the building mechanic OR the combat model, I'm pretty sure that might not be well received. [source Steam Store]

I don't want to drop the game for one mechanic not being realistic, I don't want to drop it at all. I didn't buy into this and spend as much time writing on all sorts of elements because I wanted to drop it. If it WERE only one mechanic, I'd almost certainly be fine with that.

It isn't. It's arguably EVERY CORE MECHANIC as they are presently, just to varying degrees. That's my issue with it.

Anyway, we know they're planning crew stuff and plenty more besides. I just wish they'd set some time aside for an indication on how satisfied THEY are with various core elements. I've volunteered in the past to assist doing just that, or organising specific threads aimed at gathering specific feedback and curating them ruthlessly. I've also said if they want at some point to send me a file with ALL THE TEXT IN THE GAME I will proof read it for them. I've done all these things professionally.

I think anyone who thinks my constant banging on about "realism" is unreasonable or, ironically, unrealistic, is perhaps not looking more broadly at the issues and my approach.

Not that I'm feeling under any sort of attack. I always welcome healthy discussion of IDEAS, and do my level best to criticise IDEAS, NOT those who post them.

We'll all just have to wait.

Come to think of it, perhaps it might be a nice idea to start a thread on "what we DO like about things at present" if for no other purpose than to remind ourselves there's plenty we have in common, particularly a love of these sorts of games and an enthusiasm to see this succeed.

A welcome secondary purpose might be to remind Nick and his colleagues we love them and appreciate their work; I'd not want them to think I'm saying they're anything other than hard working and trying to make the best game they can.

Anyone want to do that? Shall I? Only reason I've not is because I sometimes think having my name attached to things can colour people's perceptions before they read it, in good and bad ways. Or perhaps not.

Sorry for another walloftext, LOL.

Cheers all.

Edited by Steeltrap
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

How about your 12" AP rounds that can ricochet from the bow of a CL at 2km yet the same 12" gun firing HE never, ever ricochet? How does that work? If the armour can deflect the shell with greater pen, how can it NEVER deflect that with less pen fired from the same gun? Doesn't bother anyone?

Because Pen difference is not the only thing that is different between those shells?

 

AP uses a delayed fuse which require a certain amount of pressure so it explodes after penetrating armor. However when shot at an extreme angle it ricochets before the fuse is able to react and make the shell explode. 

 

HE however uses contact fuse which means it explodes as soon as it makes contact with a surface. So it instantly explodes even at angles where AP would bounce. There is very little pressure needed to make those shells go off. Only at an Extreme angle can HE bounce. Which happens rarely.

 

So the game actually potrays this realisticly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect to the possible differences in fusing it's far more complicated than the issue of time delay alone, given there also are matters of base or nose and caps and a host of other things.

Regardless, the explosion of an HE shell on the surface is NOT a penetration, yet the game displays such hits AS penetrations while allowing the same armour to produce a ricochet of AP (which itself is almost entirely BS under those conditions except perhaps in a vanishingly small number of cases). Yet AP bounces almost always, and HE never does.

If an HE shell were striking very thin armour at an angle that's still broad enough to arm the shell, it's all but certain the AP round MUST go through it. The physics involved are pretty horrendously complicated, yet there are great articles etc one can read to get a pretty decent view of it. Suffice to say what the game offers, especially in this specific case, is 99% bollocks. There CAN be cases where an AP shell might shatter or partially penetrate or other possibilities while a 'common/HE' shell might explode, but that's not anything like "one ricochets and the other works entirely effectively", which is what we see in the specific case I raised.

The armour thickness has little to do with it. It's the whole "auto-bounce" mechanic that seems only to apply to AP (which, incidentally, almost certainly explains the AI's programming when it comes to the hokey-pokey I mentioned). The same ship's 6" HE shells work fine, yet the 12" AP bounces? In fact if I've learned anything it's that as soon as the enemy points its nose at you, which it assuredly does, you ought to change your ammo to HE precisely because armour that bounces 12" shells will take damage even from 2" and 3" superstructure mounted casemate guns firing HE. I've even had my main armament ricochet while a 3" penetrates and causes an ammo explosion. There's so much wrong with that case that I'm not even going to bother starting on it.

Anyway, getting back to what you assert is 'realistic', would you care to calculate the energy of that 12" AP round and the 2" HE round, and then capacity of 1" of armour to dissipate that energy without cracking/failing, and then explain how it's realistic for it to deflect the first while taking "full damage" from the second?
 

9 hours ago, ReefKip said:

So the game actually potrays this realisticly.

There's a VAST array of materials looking at the extremely complicated issues of high calibre naval shells v armour. We can't both be correct, so I'll leave it to others to review and research and decide which is more accurate in their characterisation, namely my "I think it's 99% bollocks" v your "it portrays this realistically".

I have no inclination to go into any greater depth myself if for no other reason than the fact I can't be arsed any more.

While you may well have seen it, I'll leave this superficial yet excellent very high level thing on naval shells from Drach.

Cheers

 

Edited by Steeltrap
Had made an error regarding to whom I was replying, sorry about that
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so I reckon sometime after the campaign is released. (and is hopefully a big success) The devs will start to look into other naval mechanics such as signal flags. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that signal flags was very important before the discovery of radios. Now the issue is they have to change them a lot for different commands. So in game instead of changing them every minute, if you just have flags up you get communication boost. This can also apply in modern times as well. If you have a radio and flags you get a bigger communication boost. (sorry for the WOWS picture its the only one I could fine.)

 

Banners for the winners: Signal flags in the Premium Shop! | World of  Warships

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

Come to think of it, perhaps it might be a nice idea to start a thread on "what we DO like about things at present" if for no other purpose than to remind ourselves there's plenty we have in common, particularly a love of these sorts of games and an enthusiasm to see this succeed.

A welcome secondary purpose might be to remind Nick and his colleagues we love them and appreciate their work; I'd not want them to think I'm saying they're anything other than hard working and trying to make the best game they can.

I'd be absolutely up to contribute. I hope @Nick Thomadis and the rest of the dev team know we're so dedicated/such a pain in the arse (delete as appropriate) because we love this game, love the concept, secretly wish we were working on it too, and want it to be the absolute best it can be. But in the same spirit I'd like the opportunity to put on record what we do like compared to other similar games, and especially (for our older residents) the changes they've made that have really improved the game since early alpha. (In fact, since I've only been here a few months, I'd like to read that too.)

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

It's still not clear to me what the "it's not meant to be a sim" minded people think of the list of issues I've pointed out. Do none of them trouble them? To be clear, I am not meaning that as any sort of slight for those less interested in somewhat more realistic mechanics, I'm simply curious as to how far from any claim to realism the game needs to be before it will trouble them.

Main issues that most people agree on *note its in order of what I believe is most important*

  1.  Designer needs more features and freedom
  2. Balance changes of already implemented features. *which we cannot truly do until we have campaign other than obvious ones like zombie transports and the like*
  3. More communication *some people would like it, i've reported bugs and seen them fix it in the next update so im content but other are not so last for me*

We are not opposed to realism in fact we love it. But the fact remains this is a game and when people say historically this didn't work or that didn't work well that's true but this is a game. People demand that it accurately simulate real world events and progressions but this game is set in a faux history environment. Where BB's and BC will have an oversized role because of features not being implemented into the game *airpower*. While this game simulates and environment it is not a sim. It has features in the game *The designer namely* that leaves this game out of any supported simulation because the human factor. Humans while playing this game will discover new meta's to the game *meta is what works best within the games environment*.

15 hours ago, madham82 said:

So no this game isn't simulating command of a Yamato class battleship, but we are simulating the environment and physics that gave birth to it.

13 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

Agreed, except the problem as it stands is we are NOT doing that, not even close.

So for example while its nice that maybe treaty cruisers served important roles in ww2 we might NEVER see a treaty cruiser in the game because no treaty was ever made *Faux history*. So development or a new player lead meta in the game will form around specific ingame events that can not be accurately presented in history because every game is literally going to be different. So how it made sense to use 8 inch guns because of the treaty we could completely discover a whole new way to wage cruiser warfare in the game because we might have no limits.

So i guess my point is madham we actually aren't simulating the birth of the yamato and how it came to be we will be discovering new things. And I don't see that as a problem and don't see why people do. We are here to literally play out alternate history within the confines of our own naval development and strategy not historical ones

 

13 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

Come to think of it, perhaps it might be a nice idea to start a thread on "what we DO like about things at present" if for no other purpose than to remind ourselves there's plenty we have in common, particularly a love of these sorts of games and an enthusiasm to see this succeed.

Start the thread I like it.

Edited by TotalRampage
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, TotalRampage said:

Main issues that most people agree on *note its in order of what I believe is most important*

  1.  Designer needs more features and freedom
  2. Balance changes of already implemented features. *which we cannot truly do until we have campaign other than obvious ones like zombie transports and the like*
  3. More communication *some people would like it, i've reported bugs and seen them fix it in the next update so im content but other are not so last for me*

We are not opposed to realism in fact we love it. But the fact remains this is a game and when people say historically this didn't work or that didn't work well that's true but this is a game. People demand that it accurately simulate real world events and progressions but this game is set in faux history environment where BB's and BC will have an oversized role because of features not being implemented into the game *airpower*. While this game simulates and environment it is not a sim. It has features in the game *The designer namely* that leaves this game out of any supported simulation because the human factor. Humans while playing this game will discover new meta's to the game *meta is what works best within the games environment*.

So for example while its nice that maybe treaty cruisers served important roles in ww2 we might NEVER see a treaty cruiser in the game because no treaty was ever made *Faux history*. So development or a new player lead meta in the game will form around specific ingame events that can not be accurately presented in history because every game is literally going to be different. So how it made sense to use 8 inch guns because of the treaty we could completely discover a whole new way to wage cruiser warfare in the game because we might have no limits.

So i guess my point is madham we actually aren't simulating the birth of the yamato and how it came to be we will be discovering new things. And I don't see that as a problem and don't see why people do. We are here to literally play out alternate history within the confines of our own naval development and strategy not historical ones

 

Start the thread I like it.

I am fine with realism but what I am most enthusiastic about the player creating they're own history. The Devs already said you have the chance to make the Chinese a major naval power. After WW1 the Spanish Empire ,Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Chinese Empire were knocked out of the naval race. If the player picks any three of those Nations and go pass 1918 they are already making a they're own history. I really don't want this game to be based on actual history because that will make it to predictable. Another reason I don't want this game to be to based on actual history is because this gives us the chance to allow Battleships to flourish unlike in real-life.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Realistic simulation (of the technological and physical factors that influenced ship design) is not the same as historical determinism (not allowing the player to make different choices under the same set of “rules” that are grounded in reality that were present historically).


Kerbal Space Program, for example, has no connection to any actual history and clearly does not force the player to recreate a particular history, but is nonetheless is built on a fairly realistic simulation of spaceship design and the various physical constraints and real world trade-offs that influence it.

Edited by akd
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, akd said:

Realistic simulation (of the technological and physical factors that influenced ship design) is not the same as historical determinism (not allowing the player to make different choices under the same set of “rules” that are grounded in reality).

This game does not have a real basis for "realistic simulation" to take part. We are not designing our own ships from the keel we are putting on turrets, funnels, towers, and adding technological enhancements to our ships. The game provides flat percentage based bonuses to boilers, barbettes, citadel, and shaft to just name a few. So why are we trying to make a game more simulation based when we have equips in the game that provide straight percentage based buffs? 

We will be making our own ships that could complete go against what historically happened. It doesn't matter how well a specific gun platform worked in history if in the game not using that gun platform saves the user money. We will have a made up economy that varies based off the actions of the user thus making introductions of certain technologies earlier or later in history. We could see 18inch guns become the norm in the meta of the game just because the user has the economy for it even though 16 inch guns probably work just fine as they did historically for the USN. So what will this game be realistically simulating? Yes we have realistic penetration values and damage models currently in the balance and works but what else is supposed to be "Realistically simulated"?  That factor has no basis in this game solely due to economic factors in the game . Just because it was used historically doesn't mean it will fit our needs in this game. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by TotalRampage
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

With respect to the possible differences in fusing it's far more complicated than the issue of time delay alone, given there also are matters of base or nose and caps and a host of other things.

Regardless, the explosion of an HE shell on the surface is NOT a penetration, yet the game displays such hits AS penetrations while allowing the same armour to produce a ricochet of AP (which itself is almost entirely BS under those conditions except perhaps in a vanishingly small number of cases). Yet AP bounces almost always, and HE never does.

If an HE shell were striking very thin armour at an angle that's still broad enough to arm the shell, it's all but certain the AP round MUST go through it. The physics involved are pretty horrendously complicated, yet there are great articles etc one can read to get a pretty decent view of it. Suffice to say what the game offers, especially in this specific case, is 99% bollocks. There CAN be cases where an AP shell might shatter or partially penetrate or other possibilities while a 'common/HE' shell might explode, but that's not anything like "one ricochets and the other works entirely effectively", which is what we see in the specific case I raised.

The armour thickness has little to do with it. It's the whole "auto-bounce" mechanic that seems only to apply to AP (which, incidentally, almost certainly explains the AI's programming when it comes to the hokey-pokey I mentioned). The same ship's 6" HE shells work fine, yet the 12" AP bounces? In fact if I've learned anything it's that as soon as the enemy points its nose at you, which it assuredly does, you ought to change your ammo to HE precisely because armour that bounces 12" shells will take damage even from 2" and 3" superstructure mounted casemate guns firing HE. I've even had my main armament ricochet while a 3" penetrates and causes an ammo explosion. There's so much wrong with that case that I'm not even going to bother starting on it.

Anyway, getting back to what you assert is 'realistic', would you care to calculate the energy of that 12" AP round and the 2" HE round, and then capacity of 1" of armour to dissipate that energy without cracking/failing, and then explain how it's realistic for it to deflect the first while taking "full damage" from the second?
 

There's a VAST array of materials looking at the extremely complicated issues of high calibre naval shells v armour. We can't both be correct, so I'll leave it to others to review and research and decide which is more accurate in their characterisation, namely my "I think it's 99% bollocks" v your "it portrays this realistically".

I have no inclination to go into any greater depth myself if for no other reason than the fact I can't be arsed any more.

While you may well have seen it, I'll leave this superficial yet excellent very high level thing on naval shells from Drach.

Cheers

 

First of all HE shells do not Penetrate that is true. however penetration power relating to HE shells reflects the amount of armor  the Energy from the explosion can travel through. again contact fuse detonates far too soon to let the projectile penetrate. this is why HE shells even explode on thin sheet metal and even wooden objects. the projectile never penetrates. the energy from the explosion however does.

Secondly. to the piece of text i was replying to, you were certain it was bollocks, not 99%. and yes the game reflects HE shells Barely bouncing correctly. just like it reflects AP shells bouncing on extreme angles like your example correctly. Also HE shells bouncing in the game does happen the game only has no tag for it. just go bow in against an enemy that is firing HE from a broadside position and look what happens to the HE shells hitting the side of your Ship. they deflect. so there is an autobounce mechanic for HE. you just have not cared to look for it. 
 

 

12 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

If an HE shell were striking very thin armour at an angle that's still broad enough to arm the shell, it's all but certain the AP round MUST go through it. The physics involved are pretty horrendously complicated, yet there are great articles etc one can read to get a pretty decent view of it. Suffice to say what the game offers, especially in this specific case, is 99% bollocks. There CAN be cases where an AP shell might shatter or partially penetrate or other possibilities while a 'common/HE' shell might explode, but that's not anything like "one ricochets and the other works entirely effectively", which is what we see in the specific case I raised.


no it is not all but certain. you got nothing to back this up other then "it.s horrendously complicated" to prove your point. Because like i have proven it takes more to Arm an AP shell then an HE shell. you are arguing from the logic it takes the same amount of pressure and armor interaction  to arm both of them. which does not make sense. Both Shell types interact very differently with armor. if you look at the picture. you can see 2 different types of ammo for the 406mm gun of the IOWA Battleship. the MK8 AP and the MK13 HE. the MK13 HE is designed in such a way that it gives the fuse a far bigger surface of contact with the armor to detonate then the MK8 AP. Meaning far more favourable angles for the fuse to react with armor  then the MK8 AP. this is why on angles an HE shell would interact with armor, an AP shell does not. because the design of the AP shell works against it on steep angles. your entire point here holds no water.

 

12 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

Anyway, getting back to what you assert is 'realistic', would you care to calculate the energy of that 12" AP round and the 2" HE round, and then capacity of 1" of armour to dissipate that energy without cracking/failing, and then explain how it's realistic for it to deflect the first while taking "full damage" from the second?

seeing that you did not even care to calculate on why your claim is right other then "it,s horrendously complicated"  then why should i be hold to this standard? you are the one that challenges the game handling of those shells so the burden of evidence still  lies on you. i will be happy to provide my own calculations if youj come up with yours.

WNUS_16-50_mk7_compare_8_13_pic.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TotalRampage said:

So i guess my point is madham we actually aren't simulating the birth of the yamato and how it came to be we will be discovering new things. And I don't see that as a problem and don't see why people do. We are here to literally play out alternate history within the confines of our own naval development and strategy not historical ones

You missed the point. Yamato (at least in being actually built) is the culmination of the armored big gun warship. The treaties did not create the environment that led to it, the technology, tactics, and literally the physics did. The game simulates that environment period. There is no debating it, why? Because we aren't playing a hex board game with dice rolls. This game simulates every projectile, the ship's movement that is firing it and the movement of the ship being fired at, the armor it hits and trajectory that it hits at. 

What @Steeltrap, me, and others are asking for, is that simulation be as close as possible to the real world for a starting point. Otherwise the rules of this simulation will force completely unrealistic designs, tactics, and so on. Balancing for gameplay (fun factor) and for simple lack of ability to simulate all factors is expected. No one is arguing otherwise. But when like the example above a ship gets a target accuracy penalty for simply having the rudder hard over, it is detrimental to game environment and immersion (i.e. realism). 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, madham82 said:

The treaties did not create the environment that led to it, the technology, tactics, and literally the physics did. The game simulates that environment period.

Yes but the technology in game will arrive at different times and the tactics in game can be completely different. As i pointed out while yes 18 inch guns might have been the answer for the yamato maybe because of your economic situation in game something else entirely will form. Tactics for example can change due to a game meta, It might be more efficient to build 100 destroyers and use them just because the economy dictates that we can use more destroyers with loads of torpedos because its more cost effective than using a BB.

This games meta will form based of what works or not even if it worked historically. Designs were all based off the needs of the moment in real life which can come at different intervals because of the randomised economy and research in this game. I.e. the use of heavy cruisers might not happen because battlecruisers might become a more dominant force in the game because of what they bring to the fight for you vs cost. Also the none introduction of CV;s will also effect design. 

 

7 hours ago, akd said:

Kerbal Space Program, for example, has no connection to any actual history and clearly does not force the player to recreate a particular history, but is nonetheless is built on a fairly realistic simulation of spaceship design and the various physical constraints and real world trade-offs that influence it.

And again since you updated you response this game can literally not be KSD because KSD is literally a sim, "Kerbal Space Program is a space flight simulation video game developed and published by Squad for Microsoft Windows, macOS, Linux, PlayStation 4, and Xbox One".  This game as I pointed out relies on flat buffs to technological advances and actually meta tactics that will form. "games not a sim they don't advertise it as such"

I.e. more efficient to use BC over CA because no treaties never in place. Or maybe never using 8inch guns because most ships are heavier than historically. This game will form a meta that we have no idea about yet because we haven't played campaign yet. 

Edited by TotalRampage
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, ReefKip said:

 

~ lots of stuff ~

 

The only reason I write these sorts of things these days generally is in the hope that Nick and the team might see them and give them due consideration.

There have been so many nonsensical claims made on this forum over the last 12 months** that some people with VERY extensive knowledge simply got sick of correcting them. Some of them quit after a while, which is a shame because finding replacements for people with many books and thus able to provide detailed citations on the relevant stuff, some of which HAVE been provided in the past to make the point (which of course the people calling for them never went to read nor acknowledge their mistake if they did) is difficult indeed.

The supply of people who frequently know SFA about very technical subjects and/or historical records yet claim they do, on the other hand, is seemingly inexhaustible. The issue of "realistic levels of accuracy of gunfire" and "effectiveness of secondary batteries on BBs from WW1 through WW2" are just two such examples where people claimed all sorts of total crap until someone duly provided relevant reference materials and the like. It's like whackamole.

I suspect you don't know this due to having arrived here fewer than 2 weeks ago, but there have been a FEW varieties of "how HE works" tried through updates because of perverse results when it comes to AP v HE mechanics. Plunging fire with HE on a BB caused HUGE damage while the exact same guns using AP bounced, for example. In part that was a base mechanic issue, and then came down to a specific gun issue. Sound familiar? They also keep playing around with how they decide "partial penetration", and it doesn't stop there.

If the devs were seemingly "chasing the appropriate 'balance' of HE/AP" rather than having very clearly understood parameters and mechanics from the start, why would you believe THIS particular aspect is "realistic" when some other, far more basic ones were not?

[as an aside, WG similarly chased  "balancing" HE v AP many times in WoT (I played Beta in 2010) and again in WoWS from Alpha to Beta]

Which is why I really can't be arsed to pull together the necessary materials to demonstrate why a certain mechanic the devs have put in the game is POOR, especially one where there have been several iterations because of the flawed nature of earlier versions.

The true argument that we ought to see is in fact from the devs explaining on what basis they made those design choices. What was THEIR accurate source material? I'd be willing to bet in this instance the answer would be none. Not that I am expecting to take time to provide such, but the INITIAL status needs to be based on accurate materials as opposed to building one that ISN'T.

So much of this stuff is deja vu. That might not be satisfactory for you, but c'est la vie.

You are welcome to believe as you like.

 

On 10/22/2020 at 3:57 PM, Steeltrap said:

I'll leave it to others to review and research and decide which is more accurate in their characterisation

I have no inclination to go into any greater depth myself if for no other reason than the fact I can't be arsed any more.

** irrelevant piece of info, my 1st year anniversary is 26th October, or 3 days from time of writing, lol.

Edited by Steeltrap
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TotalRampage said:

Yes but the technology in game will arrive at different times and the tactics in game can be completely different. As i pointed out while yes 18 inch guns might have been the answer for the yamato maybe because of your economic situation in game something else entirely will form. Tactics for example can change due to a game meta, It might be more efficient to build 100 destroyers and use them just because the economy dictates that we can use more destroyers with loads of torpedos because its more cost effective than using a BB.

This games meta will form based of what works or not even if it worked historically. Designs were all based off the needs of the moment in real life which can come at different intervals because of the randomised economy and research in this game. I.e. the use of heavy cruisers might not happen because battlecruisers might become a more dominant force in the game because of what they bring to the fight for you vs cost. Also the none introduction of CV;s will also effect design. 

 

And again since you updated you response this game can literally not be KSD because KSD is literally a sim, "Kerbal Space Program is a space flight simulation video game developed and published by Squad for Microsoft Windows, macOS, Linux, PlayStation 4, and Xbox One".  This game as I pointed out relies on flat buffs to technological advances and actually meta tactics that will form. "games not a sim they don't advertise it as such"

I.e. more efficient to use BC over CA because no treaties never in place. Or maybe never using 8inch guns because most ships are heavier than historically. This game will form a meta that we have no idea about yet because we haven't played campaign yet. 

You keep missing the point so much that i have to make a reply or i will punch my screen.

The whole point is to create a basic "simulated" game enviroment (physics that etc. that simulate real life) even is slightly abstract form.

It doesn't matter if your ship is fictional or not what matters  is that core mechanics that stem from physics etc. and in interactions between those mechancis and physics give results similair to reality.

When you have that you can put 2 historical ships against eachother and have a realistic outcome or you can plug a ship you designed against a ship ai designed and also get realistic outcome predictcing how such fictional fight would turn out based on realistic physics and mechanics.

If the game fails at simulation reality (in terms of interactions, outcomes etc.) like when a light cruiser bow bounces ap shells or ap and he shells are not based on physics but on some vague idea of "balance" than you can neither simulate real ship engagements nor you can simulate fictional ship engagments. 

 

If you take WOWS as example ships relaod at 1:1 rate but move at 5:1 or 3:1 rate and their bows bounce shells meaning that those 2 factors alone totally change the tactics and what is considered effective. A ship designed to fight in such world would be totally different from historical ships in the game currently. 

 

Edited by Microscop
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Microscop said:

You keep missing the point so much that i have to make a reply or i will punch my screen.

So not what I was talking about at all but your poor monitor. You should work on that. 

2 hours ago, Microscop said:

The whole point is to create a basic "simulated" game enviroment (physics that etc. that simulate real life) even is slightly abstract form.

My point has been that this game is not simulating actual history which people forget completely. I have never said that it wouldn't simulate actual physics or a form of them just that history in game will develop completely different because of the introduction of technologies earlier or later or lack of technologies and that this game is not a 1:1 simulation of real events because events will happen differently. 

3 hours ago, Microscop said:

When you have that you can put 2 historical ships against eachother and have a realistic outcome or you can plug a ship you designed against a ship ai designed and also get realistic outcome predictcing how such fictional fight would turn out based on realistic physics and mechanics.

Again missing the point. By this definition games such as Napoleon total war and the such would be sims because they use real world designs on the ships. Are they actual sims? No they are not. And I have not once complained about physics only that ship design will develop differently in the game than real life. 

3 hours ago, Microscop said:

If the game fails at simulation reality (in terms of interactions, outcomes etc.) like when a light cruiser bow bounces ap shells or ap and he shells are not based on physics but on some vague idea of "balance" than you can neither simulate real ship engagements nor you can simulate fictional ship engagments. 

My posts have also not talked about ships bouncing shells at all so I dont know why you would quote me to comment that I have a vague idea of "balance". This games meta will form around what works in the game not what worked historically which is what my point is. 

Also simulation reality? We are not rolling a dice here. I don't know if you have played the game but it relies a lot of user input more so than a Simulation game such as KSP would. You can't control the environment because they will be procedurally generated but you can definitely determine the tactics used in the game. 

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

 

Again missing the point. By this definition games such as Napoleon total war and the such would be sims because they use real world designs on the ships. Are they actual sims? No they are not. And I have not once complained about physics only that ship design will develop differently in the game than real life. 

 

 

No you are missing the point. I said that ship design is irrelevant, what matters is a system based on reality where you can plug real ship or fictional ship and have their behaviour based on earthly physics etc. If you have a system that fails at simulating a fight between 2 historical ships it will also fail with 2 fictional ships. 

 

Noone here forgets that the game is no simulating history. The fact that you argue with Madhman and Steeltrap shows that you don't understand what they mean. Their problem is that that the game fails at simulating core mechanics of naval combat meaning that any fantasy ship you design will not be rooted in the same conext of physics etc. as real ships. This means that the alternate history you create in campaign and your ships designs can't be compared to real ships and real history because it's basicly alternate universe with different set of physics.

So if you want to build lets say your own version of hood cabale of taking down Bismarck and test it out in custom battle well if Bismarck is using its real design meant for realsitic physics but the ship you build fallows the fake physics of the game than it's meaningless. 

 

The problem everyone wanting the game to be realistic is:

WE WANT FICTIONAL SHIPS WE DESIGN IN ALTERNATE HISTORY CAMPAIGN THAT WE PLAY TO BE BOUND BY THE SAME LAWS OF PHYSICS AND THEIR EFFECTS AS REAL SHIPS WERE IN REAL HISTORY. Otherwise we are creating fictional ships in fictional history of fictional universe with fictional physics which is not the point of this game.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyways shush. Lets just start the prediction game again, since we don't have anything better to do.

I say last week of October as i got clapped in my previous prediction, probs will in this one as well.

I also reckon the campaign won't arrive till like march next year maybe april.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cptbarney said:

Anyways shush. Lets just start the prediction game again, since we don't have anything better to do.

I say last week of October as i got clapped in my previous prediction, probs will in this one as well.

I also reckon the campaign won't arrive till like march next year maybe april.

Gunna jinx it again barney

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...