World of Warships

[Norfleet]

That's why Carriers travel in battlegroups. Good luck getting near them either by plane, ship or sub.

This has already been done. Like I said, that carrier was toasted. They had an entire battlegroup on alert in mid-exercise, and yet they found NOTHING until that Chinese sub popped up to basically say "Bang, you dead". So yes, Chinese subs can currently sneak up and kill carriers with impunity.

Silence isn't all that important in modern submarines, if they really wanted to find you they'd use active sonar. The main advantage of being submersible is being invisible to radar, rather then merely being "stealthy" to it ie not at all.

Yeah, you ever play 688? Banging away with active sonar isn't guaranteed to find your enemy, but sure as hell guarantees they find YOU. It's a fast way to get dead. Imagine that you're a bunch of guys groping about in the dark with guns. You all have flashlights. You think "No problem, I'll just turn on my flashlight...". You MIGHT see them, they sure as fuck DO see YOU.

 

[Ulminati]

Tanks hiding and taking cover is a retarded concept that negates the entire point of tanks, they were fucking invented to cross the killzones of WWI and be the goddamn cover for the infantry.

That was back when they were facing light machine guns. Using the terrain for stealth and cover became very important once weapons that could punch through their armor became common. Ask a kwan WW2 vet what would happen if he didn't hide and use cover around a Tiger, StuG or Pz IV.

Spoiler

This:

 

[Whiran]

Whiran Isn't that what a carrier already is?

True enough.

 

[CaptainCoxwaggle]

That was back when they were facing light machine guns. Using the terrain for stealth and cover became very important once weapons that could punch through their armor became common. Ask a kwan WW2 vet what would happen if he didn't hide and use cover around a Tiger, StuG or Pz IV.

Spoiler

This:

Aside from the Sherman being a terrible tank developed on Guderin's idea of an infantry support tank (The guidelines from which the Panzer IV was developed upon, until it was found to be utterly faulty, the Panzer IV fortunately was a versatile design that could be upgunned, and the useless Panzer III were turned into Stugs) Tanks in WW2 typically didn't hide behind buildings and hills, because doing so makes them utterly worthless as an artillery platform.

Tanks on the defensive would be entrenched hull down, giving the turret the capacity to fire upon the enemy. This of course was in rare situations, as tanks were generally held behind the frontlines in reserve in order to support a counter offensive, as tanks confer no advantage on the defensive over a simple field gun. There is no reason why you should risk a valuable tank to be pounded on by artillery when you can have just the gun, which is also easier to hide.

Tank on tank combat was usually short, as a single penetrating hit is all that is required to disable a tank. Typically the tank that shot first and hit first won, unless their gun was incapable of penetrating the enemy. This is why German tanks achieved a 1:5 loss ratio for armoured vehicles despite their tanks being poorly designed, they had excellent optics, crew, and guns.


And besides, in the above case, you know how the Yanks and Russians dealt with it? By having moar all moving forward so that the enemy could not destroy them all before being overrun.

 

[Norfleet]

And that's the elegance of the Sherman: That it was cheaply produced and easy to maintain. Panzers were more often than not broken and inoperable. Sure, it wasn't great, but there sure were a lot of them. Quantity is a quality of its own. The ultimate Zerg Tank is the T-34, though. More produced than any other tank, ever, and not a bad tank, either.

 

[CaptainCoxwaggle]

I'd personally reserve such praise for things such as the Hellcat, which managed to be cheap and easy to maintain while being massively effective in comparison to the enemy. The Sherman and T-34 were great when they were first introduced, but rapidly fell behind as the war progressed and required significant redesign as the numerous Sherman variants and the T-34-85 which significantly lowered production speed (although the allied still out produced the axis which is why they won in the first place).

The Panzer IV was superior in that it was an effective and upgradeable platform throughout the entire war, and the Germans were idiots for not taking advantage of the streamlined production of them to keep up with allied production and instead focusing on making garbage like the Panther.

Ironically the Japs had the best designed tank, the Chi-Ha whose chassis was upgraded into the Shin Ho-To Chi-Ha, Chi-He, and Chi-Nu and compared favourably with allied tanks while being cheaper in terms of manufacturing and cost. The Chi-To was essentially an upscaled version of the chassis and is comparable to the panther in terms of statistics.

 

[aron searle]

Tanks hiding and taking cover is a retarded concept that negates the entire point of tanks, they were fucking invented to cross the killzones of WWI and be the goddamn cover for the infantry.

But that would make a boring GAME, what you describe may be shit your pants scary or fun in real life (depending upon your mentality) but is just rubbish in a game. Tanks simply crossing a field shooting at things get's old quick, having to use the landscape as cover makes for much more GAME possibilities.

Not getting into an actual historical accurate argument as that is not the point, simply crossing killzones would get boring very quickly, you need cover mechanics to add flavour to the game.

Naval combat is based on formations and maneuvering, ships don't magically stop in place and exchange volleys, they are in constant motion. The firing arcs of all your weapon systems make it of premium importance to present a broadside to your opponent while minimising the number of weapons they can fire back. Crossing the T is paramount to pre-modern naval tactics.

REAL naval combat, as far as I am aware, is 99% positioning of your fleet and where to put yourself in the sea in relation to the enemy. In a game this would be about as fun as map reading BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IT IS (I love caps).

The other 1% is shooting at each other, which again becomes a gun and hit point contest. Sure you could have some short term fun learning gun arcs and managing ammo, cooldowns and whatever, but this would make for a very short lived game as it would become pretty old.

Without some kind of cover mechanic (which makes sense in a tank game, but not in an open waters game), all you have is a bunch of ships moving in formation and then derp firing their guns.

Would probably be interesting for an hour then you would uninstall.

 

[aron searle]

Brazil, India, Russia.

Please tell me where in the world these countries need to be sending aircraft that they don't have a landbase for?

 

[Destroid]

Where does anyone need to send their airforce?

 

[Raghar]

Apart from navy field there never was any decent naval arena type game, so i'm kinda looking forward for this.

Warship gunner 2.

 

[CaptainCoxwaggle]

But that would make a boring GAME, what you describe may be shit your pants scary or fun in real life (depending upon your mentality) but is just rubbish in a game. Tanks simply crossing a field shooting at things get's old quick, having to use the landscape as cover makes for much more GAME possibilities.

Not getting into an actual historical accurate argument as that is not the point, simply crossing killzones would get boring very quickly, you need cover mechanics to add flavour to the game.

Agreed, which is why WoT is not my cup of tea as it is centered around the absence of infantry and battlelines and needs cover and vision mechanics for gameplay.

REAL naval combat, as far as I am aware, is 99% positioning of your fleet and where to put yourself in the sea in relation to the enemy. In a game this would be about as fun as map reading BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IT IS (I love caps).

The other 1% is shooting at each other, which again becomes a gun and hit point contest. Sure you could have some short term fun learning gun arcs and managing ammo, cooldowns and whatever, but this would make for a very short lived game as it would become pretty old.

Without some kind of cover mechanic (which makes sense in a tank game, but not in an open waters game), all you have is a bunch of ships moving in formation and then derp firing their guns.

Would probably be interesting for an hour then you would uninstall.

While mostly correct a big difference is the sheer number of different ships with different roles available. Battleships might be queen of gunlines, but they become scrap if some destroyer or sub managed to fire a spread of torpedoes up its ass. Cruisers are a jack of all trades that can range from being a pocket battleship to being an elongated destroyer.

The big draw I would imagine is outfitting your ship to suit your playstyle and role within a fleet. Formations would be important for the large vessels, but smaller faster ships would be inclined to break formations in order to harass the enemy while evading incoming shells and aircraft. Torpedoes add an element of high risk, high reward and require maneuvering to both avoid and fire.

The only issue would be that it would be a team focused game, and with multiplayer playerbases consisting of 98% mongoloid the game would likely degenerate between individual ships circling around each other shooting until the one with the bigger gun and thicker armour wins, with the occasional bitching of someone who gets one shotted by a torpedo claiming he totally dodged it.

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

Warship gunner 2.

I think he said 'arena', not 'arcade'.

 

[Drakron]

That was back when they were facing light machine guns.

Dont be retarded.

WW I tanks were intended as support for infantry and they were quite capable of being destroyed by artillery and mortar fire, something that wasnt a lack of during WW I.

Like any weapon, a counter was created (Mauser 1918 T-Gewehr) and with WW II more counters were created, the Sherman was a typical infantry support that could not really handle tank destroyers, the M10 was one that used the M4 chassis, not to mention the M4 was intended to be support of infantry that would be equipped with anti-tank weapons such as the bazooka, not to mention the allies typically had air superiority.

The Sherman was not a MBT, they would only be created after it.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

FORM A LINE! A LINE YOU RETARDS! STOP OBSTRUCTING AND FIRING AT EACH OTHER!

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

 

[CaptainCoxwaggle]

Looks like Wargaming still hasn't figured out how to incorporate secondary weapons

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Bought it.

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

I would also but I fear for my sanity while playing with those... people.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

It'll be like world of tanks. Lots of retards to verbally abuse and then take advantage of on the enemy side.

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

Looks like Wargaming still hasn't figured out how to incorporate secondary weapons

Secondary armament fires automatically at anything that comes into range, be it aircraft or ships.

 

[Makabb]

are the guns auto aiming ?

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

Yes.

 

[Destroid]

So your ability to fend off aircraft is going to be completely up to chance, sounds great.

 

[Norfleet]

That's pretty much how it was, and really, is, in real life. I mean, what, you seriously want to manually play Battleship: AA Turret Gunner? Nobody does that, not even today, it's run by computer. There is no way you're going to be better at shooting down tiny planes than the computer is.