2 BBcaptain008 Member 61 posts 2,625 battles Report post #1 Posted April 19, 2016 (edited) during evaluating some stats (for other reasons) I stumbled upon some inconsitencies. In harbour (and modules) there are specific values given for ship- & torpedo-speeds - latter also heavily discussed in threads about the new 5.4 & 5.5 nerfs - which don´t match the in-game data at all (table of tests attached below). As much as I understand that WOWS uses a factor 5x (otherwise a decent game would last at least 5 times longer, and somehow they want to make money ) what is the point of mentioning them in that case anyway ? for someone like me, who enjoys the sim-character to a good part (sorry, ex-navy) its just disappointing having a battlecruiser like Kongo moving around with take-off speed of an Antonov AN 225, or Torpedos rushing like cruise-missiles. Yet Guns V0 is adjusted by factor 1,5 (DDs) to 1,9 (BB) only which increases the resulting dispersion field/decreases hit probalitiy by factor 9 (BB) to 12 (DD). All for the sake of players happiness ?? edit: sry forgot historical values for the guns: Sampson/Clemson 102/50MK12&14 V0: 880m/s, Range 14500 8-9 rpm Minekaze/Mutsuki 120/45 3rd Year V0: 825 m/s, Range 15000 5-6 rpm Kongo Vickers 14 inch/45 naval gun V0: 775m/s Range 35400 rpm??? Knots= NM/h 1 NM = 1852 m TESTS Ship max Speed (knots) speed(m/sec) battle duration (min:sec) battle duration (sec) Distance travelled (m) ingame ship speed (knots) incorrectness ratio Torp Type Torp Range (m) Torp Speed (Knots) Torp Speed (m/sec) max range runtime (sec) Torp firing range (m) runtime (sec) ingame torp speed (knots) incorrectness ratio gun range shell flighttime shell speed (m/sec) Minekaze 39,1 20,1 06:19 379 37760 193,7 5,0 92 7000 68 34,98 200,1 5100 30 330,5 4,9 5120 4 1280 39,1 02:57 177 18360 201,6 5,2 Sampson 29,5 15,2 08:04 484 37290 149,8 5,1 Bliss MK7 4500 54 27,78 162,0 2510 18,5 263,7 4,9 5160 3,5 1290 Mutsuki 37,6 19,3 05:41 341 32890 187,5 5,0 Type 8 mod2 10000 59 30,35 329,5 5100 33 300,4 5,1 5270 4 1317,5 Clemson 35,1 18,1 06:21 381 34450 175,8 5,0 MK11 5500 56 28,81 190,9 5120 34 292,7 5,2 5160 4 1290 Kongo 30,1 15,5 10:00 600 45580 147,7 4,9 13200 9 1466,7 Edited April 19, 2016 by BBcaptain008 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
885 [TDA] dead_man_walking Senior Moderator 4,798 posts 1,925 battles Report post #2 Posted April 19, 2016 Quite simply it's an arcade game based off historical ships, not a simulator. 1 XP_On reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
108 [BLUMR] Ryusuke_ShireiKan Beta Tester 812 posts 2,681 battles Report post #3 Posted April 19, 2016 like what mod said. the answer is always quite simple Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2 BBcaptain008 Member 61 posts 2,625 battles Report post #4 Posted April 19, 2016 "As much as I understand that WOWS uses a factor 5x (otherwise a decent game would last at least 5 times longer, and somehow they want to make money ) what is the point of mentioning them in that case anyway ?" Quite simply it's an arcade game based off historical ships, not a simulator. Thanks for the info, I understood that already.... Nevertheless a DD overtaking a F1 car ??? (201 knots = 372 Km/h) - come on U cant be serious.... Proposal: why doesnt WOWS implement another type of battle (SIM) - lets see what users prefer Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
857 [LEAK] amade Senior Moderator 3,837 posts 2,602 battles Report post #5 Posted April 19, 2016 Proposal: why doesnt WOWS implement another type of battle (SIM) - lets see what users prefer It's called WoWS Closed Alpha, and it was extremely dull. And it wasn't even full sim either! 2 Harpoon01 and Sekba reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
164 [BLUMR] ADM_dude Senior Moderator 1,129 posts Report post #6 Posted April 19, 2016 (edited) Proposal: why doesnt WOWS implement another type of battle (SIM) - lets see what users prefer Because what they have now is fine? It's scaled for a reason, namely the reason you said which is the game would take too long. I like it how it is in terms of relative speeds of objects (as much as i dislike the giant magnet my ops room crew is carrying for AP shells to be attracted to ) Edited April 19, 2016 by ADM_dude Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2 BBcaptain008 Member 61 posts 2,625 battles Report post #7 Posted April 19, 2016 (edited) ...as much as i dislike the giant magnet my ops room crew is carrying for AP shells to be attracted to Yep, my crew seems to carry at least one too - but seems to be multi-purpose - attracts torps too So its looks as if I have to reactivate DOS on my tincan - someone remembers fighting steel ? Edited April 19, 2016 by BBcaptain008 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
147 Chawp Member 1,134 posts 1,377 battles Report post #8 Posted April 19, 2016 Proposal: why doesnt WOWS implement another type of battle (SIM) - lets see what users prefer I guess its due to the fact that It would divert resources into creating something for a relativly niche group in an already niche game. Maybe in a few years time when we have at least the 5 main nations with their fleshed out trees can we expect WG to look more sim stuff. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
899 [TDA] AntifoulAwl [TDA] Alpha Tester 1,828 posts 7,474 battles Report post #9 Posted April 19, 2016 Proposal: why doesnt WOWS implement another type of battle (SIM) - lets see what users prefer Players would never tolerate the real life RNG and the time taken for naval engagement. Imagine maneuvering around the enemy team for about 6 hours and then, when the fun starts, only about 5% of your shells hit? And then when the battle is over, you find your wife has run off with an American sailor?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
18 Rear_Admiral_Sir_Dr_Pain Member 178 posts 3,793 battles Report post #10 Posted April 19, 2016 Or half your crew goes down due to venereal diseases after the last port of call Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
623 [LEAK] Harpoon01 Alpha Tester 6,605 posts 2,625 battles Report post #11 Posted April 19, 2016 And then when the battle is over, you find your wife has run off with an American sailor?? ssshhh... you don't want those new seaman to quit Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1,147 [BLUMR] Syanda Moderator 4,163 posts 1,924 battles Report post #12 Posted April 19, 2016 Because sim game populations have universally been the smallest - and the work that has to go into it doesn't really justify the cost, especially for a F2P game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2 BBcaptain008 Member 61 posts 2,625 battles Report post #13 Posted April 19, 2016 (edited) Because sim game populations have universally been the smallest - and the work that has to go into it doesn't really justify the cost, especially for a F2P game. part 1 fully agreed, part 2 not so much, the work which would have to go into it is minor -> a simple If-clause (if mode sim - else) and a second set of parameter tables (speed, range, rpm, dispersion) and thats pretty much it.... introduction of weather phenomena like in 5.5 IS quite is a lot of work compared to that, including testing.... nevertheless, as chawp pointed out already, time will show @antifoulawl that´s what happend to U during Alpha ? Edited April 19, 2016 by BBcaptain008 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
885 [TDA] dead_man_walking Senior Moderator 4,798 posts 1,925 battles Report post #14 Posted April 19, 2016 (edited) disclaimer: this is personal opinion OK I had a quick dig on steam for naval simulators and the best rated/most used one was at about 38K downloads total. WG's history is in 4x and warfare simulators, so they do know the market. Quite simply put, simulators don't make enough money to make it viable from WG's perspective at the moment. Pure speculation here: We'll see how the experiment with the reboot of Master of Orion goes as a AAA 4X, turn based title. If that is highly successful, WG may return to their roots and release warfare strategy games again. I wouldn't expect them to be under the FTP model, most likely these would return to the AAA model and be released under the WG Labs banner rather than wargaming.net. Edited April 19, 2016 by dead_man_walking Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
164 [BLUMR] ADM_dude Senior Moderator 1,129 posts Report post #15 Posted April 19, 2016 (edited) Continuing on from what DMW said, if you really want a good sim, contact these guys. I'm sure they'll be able to provide you with exactly what you want. https://www.km.kongsberg.com/ks/web/nokbg0240.nsf/AllWeb/5792E29604BB5431C1257D88004748CC?OpenDocument Edited April 19, 2016 by ADM_dude Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
405 [BLUMR] Windforce ST Coordinator 2,325 posts 2,206 battles Report post #16 Posted April 20, 2016 You can always try the good old game of Great Naval Battles North Atlantic, where battles took a long time and if you did not manage your DamCon correctly, you sink. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2 BBcaptain008 Member 61 posts 2,625 battles Report post #17 Posted April 20, 2016 (edited) Continuing on from what DMW said, if you really want a good sim, contact these guys. I'm sure they'll be able to provide you with exactly what you want. https://www.km.kongsberg.com/ks/web/nokbg0240.nsf/AllWeb/5792E29604BB5431C1257D88004748CC?OpenDocument Yep the kongsberg simulators are nice - we did a lot of nav & combat training on it - only a little pricey and if You go for that one, then U should purchase the arty-simulator for the Bofors 2x40M/L70 or Otomelara 76 dual purpose too. Question is someone got 4000 sqm storage left - and don´t complain about the eletricity bill neither..... http://reamda.com/pdfs/REAMDA-Naval-Gunnery-Simulator-EOFCS.pdf Edited April 20, 2016 by BBcaptain008 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
164 [BLUMR] ADM_dude Senior Moderator 1,129 posts Report post #18 Posted April 20, 2016 Yep the kongsberg simulators are nice - we did a lot of nav & combat training on it - only a little pricey and if You go for that one, then U should purchase the arty-simulator for the Bofors 2x40M/L70 or Otomelara 76 dual purpose too. Question is someone got 4000 sqm storage left - and don´t complain about the eletricity bill neither..... http://reamda.com/pdfs/REAMDA-Naval-Gunnery-Simulator-EOFCS.pdf **Off Topic** Tbh i prefer the Mk45's to the 76. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
885 [TDA] dead_man_walking Senior Moderator 4,798 posts 1,925 battles Report post #19 Posted April 20, 2016 **Off Topic** Tbh i prefer the Mk45's to the 76. Mk 5 4.5" Mk6 turret Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2 BBcaptain008 Member 61 posts 2,625 battles Report post #20 Posted April 20, 2016 (edited) **Off Topic** Tbh i prefer the Mk45's to the 76. Mk 5 4.5" Mk6 turret **OT *** in that case RAM and Vulcan for AA Edited April 20, 2016 by BBcaptain008 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites