Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.

20 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Member
61 posts
2,625 battles

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 by BBcaptain008

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
61 posts
2,625 battles

"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
Senior Moderator
3,837 posts
2,602 battles

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Senior Moderator
1,129 posts

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 :P )

Edited by ADM_dude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
61 posts
2,625 battles

 

...as much as i dislike the giant magnet my ops room crew is carrying for AP shells to be attracted to :P

 

Yep, my crew seems to carry at least one too :playing: - but seems to be multi-purpose - attracts torps too :izmena:

 

So its looks as if I have to reactivate DOS on my tincan - someone remembers fighting steel ?

Edited by BBcaptain008

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
147
[BLUMR]
Member
1,134 posts
1,377 battles

 

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
Alpha Tester
1,637 posts
7,230 battles

 

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
Alpha Tester
6,604 posts
2,477 battles

 

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
Moderator
4,163 posts
1,874 battles

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
Member
61 posts
2,625 battles

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 :) ? :medal:

Edited by BBcaptain008

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Senior Moderator
4,798 posts
1,924 battles

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 by dead_man_walking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Senior Moderator
1,129 posts

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 by ADM_dude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ST Coordinator
2,325 posts
2,196 battles

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
Member
61 posts
2,625 battles

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 by BBcaptain008

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Senior Moderator
1,129 posts

 

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
Member
61 posts
2,625 battles

 

**Off Topic**

Tbh i prefer the Mk45's to the 76. 

 

 

Mk 5 4.5" Mk6 turret :hiding:

 

**OT ***

in that case RAM and Vulcan for AA    300px-Vulcan1.jpg    300px-USS_New_Orleans_%28LPD-18%29_launc

Edited by BBcaptain008

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×