Game physics

[BBcaptain008]

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

[dead_man_walking]

Quite simply it's an arcade game based off historical ships, not a simulator.

[Ryusuke_ShireiKan]

like what mod said. the answer is always quite simple 

 

[BBcaptain008]

"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

[amade]

 

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!}

[ADM_dude]

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 )

[BBcaptain008]

 

...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 ?

[Chawp]

 

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. 

[AntifoulAwl]

 

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?? 

[Rear_Admiral_Sir_Dr_Pain]

Or half your crew goes down due to venereal diseases after the last port of call

[Harpoon01]

 

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

[Syanda]

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.

[BBcaptain008]

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 ?

[dead_man_walking]

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.

[ADM_dude]

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

 

[Windforce]

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.

[BBcaptain008]

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

[ADM_dude]

 

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. 

[dead_man_walking]

 

**Off Topic**

Tbh i prefer the Mk45's to the 76. 

 

Mk 5 4.5" Mk6 turret 

[BBcaptain008]

 

**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