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

wonderful graphics but... grumbles form a WoW noob but a WoT Vet

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Member
62 posts
1,454 battles

You have over complicated it - why introduce aircraft? leave that to WoP don't mix ships with planes you didn't do it in WoT and it WORKED!

 

next grumble... it's too slow to get 'engaged' (yes I know about the 'speed' thing)

 

One of my BIGGEST grumbles using same 'Y' key for 'speed' and 'launch air craft' how dumb is that?  I forget and press 'Y'  and get planes launched when I want to increased speed

 

next, and last, I can't clearly see torpedo reload data - can't see when to fire

 

LOOKS super - but frustrating   

 

 

Edited by JollyGood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,040 posts
1,326 battles

1: Because naval aviation is a part of WWII naval warfare?

2: You should know that naval engagements in real life were 5-10 times slower than this. The game already "speed up" the combat time.

3: Because different ships have different consumables? Destroyers get Speed boost while Cruisers and Battleships get Spotter/Fighter aircraft.

4: Press the "3" key, the torpedo reload should be at where your gun reload timers are, which is near the bottom.

5: This game is different from WoT, don't take what you learnt there to here, it'll bite you back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
301 posts
113 battles

Uh, I don't really do this because it ain't my nature, but I've seen loads of these already that I also kinda want to share what I think of the game yeah.

 

I'm... *technically* a WoT Vet too, been in the CBT for WoTSEA and played way back before even that dreaded KV-tank (not the KV-1 and KV-2), but having played Battlestations, I had some sort of expectation of how 'Ships was going to be, and was promptly not disappointed. Heck, I switched completely over to 'Ships after getting a slot in CBT.

 

For first point, there are aircraft because I think aircraft carriers are a huge part of naval warfare in general. Huge floaty things with number of guns shooting at each other quite slowly whilst dodging other shots and torpedoes coming from other huge floaty things might become bland over time. After the advent of carriers came concepts like aerial superiority and even more stuff to think about while shipping along. For your argument of WoT not having planes, well, ground support aircraft actually had pretty hard time of killing tanks, but them carrier borne craft had a pretty good time hitting targets yeah. What I'm basically trying to say is planes had more important role in 'Ships rather than 'Tanks which would kinda make something feeling missing if you take out CVs. Think WoT without arty or something. Though CVs aren't artys. Pls don't go full flame war on that again.

 

For second point, I find that 'Ships is pretty much slower paced than WoT. No, it's definitely slower paced than WoT. It's my cup of tea since it gives a more... strategical (?) play rather than the faster paced shoot first gameplay of WoT. Think like if both teams in WoT had Maus with OHKO arty weapons, slower Maus with three turrets, and even slower Maus with ridiculous armor. Also maps are larger, around 30km+ for some. You could try DDs for faster paced gameplay, but it's still going to feel slower than WoT.

 

For third point, I don't think there are cruisers that can use speed boost nor destroyers that can launch planes :v uh... which is probably why devs decided to map the same key? Just like in WoT where you can choose where to put your cola, repair kit, and extinguishers.

 

Last point, you actually get a real loud sound cue when torps are reloaded, like tons of chains rolling round and a sort of "lock and load" sound. Also I still don't get this, since there are also reload timers for them torps on the icon itself.

 

tl;dr, basically what Ge-.. Gezeit-... er... Tidal Planet (according to google translate, sorry man I can't type your name) guy up top said.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
423 posts
3,175 battles

World of Tanks and World of Warships ain't the same game, so your "I'm a WoT veteran" isn't anything but getting the grudges from WoWS players, for many good players here are also WoT vets, yet they never speaks the same tone as you are. No offense, though.

 

1. The reason WoWS should have airplanes is simple: the ships aren't tanks, the battlefield is a lot bigger (1-2km in WoT comparing to 30-40km in WoWS) and the ships got a whole lot better survivability than armored tanks. Another way to say, you need a bigger hammer to strike down a target.

Pretty much if you brought some tank-hunting aircrafts into WoT, the game would be decimated in just minutes. Imagine a strafe run from a squadron of Corsair F4, combining with bombs and rockets. Well, pretty much the entire armored column is gone, which is not interesting anymore. So Wargamming just restricted the fight in WoT in just tank vs. tank battle. Other than that, not so much applied in WoWS. Each ship, even the destroyers, could bear not just a single 12.7mm DShK in the IS-4, but the entire deck full of AA guns, where the attack of aircrafts isn't a big issue anymore.

 

2. About the "pace of game" you would say, it is even SLOOOOWEEEERRRR in real life, thanks to the fact that the size of map is much bigger than that of WoT, the ships traverse much slower due to the restriction of water, and the average survivability of the ships is much much more compare to a tank. Remember that a Maus weight 100 tons seems big - now look at the destroyers, the lightest of them are all over 1000 tons (at least in game). You got the picture now?

 

Secondly, is base on the strategic view: with each tank you are driving, you're having only a "squad" of tanker, with just 5 to 7 personnels. Now for each ship you're in, you have at least a company of crew members (80-100) to do the job, not to mention the capital ships need at least 500 to 1000 personnels to function properly. Of course, the pace has to be slower, you are talking about chain of command, risk assessment and other stuffs. No place for hushy mushy.

 

3. Different ships got different consumable, for gameplay balancing purposes. So same key binding for tier I consumables, II consumables and III. Looks for stats of ships when you're on port to see which tier is your desired consumable in.

 

4. Torp timer can be viewed by pressing the default "3" key. When the launch area is yellow, the torpedo tube(s) is/are reloading, with the timer you can see on the area where your batteries are. Otherwise once the torpedo tubes is loaded, you can hear a metallic clinking sound, like when you're slamming the hatch of your kettle.

 

5. Welcome to my life when I'm learning how to torp people in a Sampson or to learning to control a Langley or even learning how to lead a shot to a slow moving battleship. It takes time to learn, and like it is said in my signature, you gotta shred your old shiny armor to embrace new things. My word would be a little harsh, but if you're willing to listen, you'd find it means good for you.

 

P/S: Modesty earns people trust, don't yell out "I'm vet in WoT", that is vain in the words, as it is vain in the way it bounces.

Edited by jchen8792

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
62 posts
1,454 battles

1: Because naval aviation is a part of WWII naval warfare?

2: You should know that naval engagements in real life were 5-10 times slower than this. The game already "speed up" the combat time.

3: Because different ships have different consumables? Destroyers get Speed boost while Cruisers and Battleships get Spotter/Fighter aircraft.

4: Press the "3" key, the torpedo reload should be at where your gun reload timers are, which is near the bottom.

5: This game is different from WoT, don't take what you learnt there to here, it'll bite you back.

 

it's apart of tank warfare too - but they have not mixed it in World of Tanks - anyway I'm very, very new so will take time for me to learn

 

a TUTORIAL, to be completed before first battle, would have been really helpful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
62 posts
1,454 battles

World of Tanks and World of Warships ain't the same game, so your "I'm a WoT veteran" isn't anything but getting the grudges from WoWS players, for many good players here are also WoT vets, yet they never speaks the same tone as you are. No offense, though.

 

1. The reason WoWS should have airplanes is simple: the ships aren't tanks, the battlefield is a lot bigger (1-2km in WoT comparing to 30-40km in WoWS) and the ships got a whole lot better survivability than armored tanks. Another way to say, you need a bigger hammer to strike down a target.

Pretty much if you brought some tank-hunting aircrafts into WoT, the game would be decimated in just minutes. Imagine a strafe run from a squadron of Corsair F4, combining with bombs and rockets. Well, pretty much the entire armored column is gone, which is not interesting anymore. So Wargamming just restricted the fight in WoT in just tank vs. tank battle. Other than that, not so much applied in WoWS. Each ship, even the destroyers, could bear not just a single 12.7mm DShK in the IS-4, but the entire deck full of AA guns, where the attack of aircrafts isn't a big issue anymore.

 

2. About the "pace of game" you would say, it is even SLOOOOWEEEERRRR in real life, thanks to the fact that the size of map is much bigger than that of WoT, the ships traverse much slower due to the restriction of water, and the average survivability of the ships is much much more compare to a tank. Remember that a Maus weight 100 tons seems big - now look at the destroyers, the lightest of them are all over 1000 tons (at least in game). You got the picture now?

 

Secondly, is base on the strategic view: with each tank you are driving, you're having only a "squad" of tanker, with just 5 to 7 personnels. Now for each ship you're in, you have at least a company of crew members (80-100) to do the job, not to mention the capital ships need at least 500 to 1000 personnels to function properly. Of course, the pace has to be slower, you are talking about chain of command, risk assessment and other stuffs. No place for hushy mushy.

 

3. Different ships got different consumable, for gameplay balancing purposes. So same key binding for tier I consumables, II consumables and III. Looks for stats of ships when you're on port to see which tier is your desired consumable in.

 

4. Torp timer can be viewed by pressing the default "3" key. When the launch area is yellow, the torpedo tube(s) is/are reloading, with the timer you can see on the area where your batteries are. Otherwise once the torpedo tubes is loaded, you can hear a metallic clinking sound, like when you're slamming the hatch of your kettle.

 

5. Welcome to my life when I'm learning how to torp people in a Sampson or to learning to control a Langley or even learning how to lead a shot to a slow moving battleship. It takes time to learn, and like it is said in my signature, you gotta shred your old shiny armor to embrace new things. My word would be a little harsh, but if you're willing to listen, you'd find it means good for you.

 

P/S: Modesty earns people trust, don't yell out "I'm vet in WoT", that is vain in the words, as it is vain in the way it bounces.

 

thanks for input - don't accept your criticism of the 'I'm vet' as it's the same company and same set of games. I did not say i was 'good' just a 'vet' having played 28k games and now REALLY bored with WoT trying this out

 

very slow paced and my early point of view may change as i gain knowledge but the thing that's putting me off at the moment is planes buzzing around (and YES there were more planes engaged in tank battles than sea in the REAL war so this is not a good reason). Let's see my view may change - cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
423 posts
3,175 battles

They're annoying as ****, but once you're on the Cleveland and starting to K.O them out of the sky. Cheers! More so with the AA boost. I've seen Clevey fighter combine with AA boost wipe out an entire 3 squads of TB attack by tier VIII carrier.

 

Anyway if you're looking for a Division, team up with me. Surely I'm not a very good player, but double the brains, double the gain...

Edited by jchen8792

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

Some of us remarked the game would have been better suited to WWI where there were far more, LARGER navies and CVs didn't exist. If you look at the WWI era you could fill different branches of a tech tree for several nations without having to include a single "napkinwaffe" design.

 

WG chose to do WWII and implement CVs, however, and now is having a hell of a time trying to balance them; there's some interesting statistical data that shows just how grossly over performing CVs are compared with every other ship at pretty much every tier. In many tiers it's both the IJN and USN CVs that top av dam/battle, at some other tiers it's the IJN only. And I believe I'm correct in saying there's not a single tier from 4-10 inclusive where at least one CV isn't the top performer. Assuming the data is valid, it's pretty damning about balance right now.

 

Will WG succeed at balancing them? Good question. If they don't. I'd have my doubts about the longevity of the game (although WoT players put up with daft SPGs for years, so who knows?).

 

Was it a good idea? Well, only the Royal Navy had any number of CVs in WWII, so filling out the rosters of other nations will be complete fiction.

 

Personally I'd be perfectly happy without CVs and the dev time spent on those (and AA and all the other things that resulted) going into more nuanced damage systems and a bunch of other things. I suspect I'm not the only person to feel that way.

 

But I don't call the shots, do I? LOL.

Edited by Steeltrap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
62 posts
1,454 battles

Some of us remarked the game would have been better suited to WWI where there were far more, LARGER navies and CVs didn't exist. If you look at the WWI era you could fill different branches of a tech tree for several nations without having to include a single "napkinwaffe" design.

 

WG chose to do WWII and implement CVs, however, and now is having a hell of a time trying to balance them; there's some interesting statistical data that shows just how grossly over performing CVs are compared with every other ship at pretty much every tier. In many tiers it's both the IJN and USN CVs that top av dam/battle, at some other tiers it's the IJN only. And I believe I'm correct in saying there's not a single tier from 4-10 inclusive where at least one CV isn't the top performer. Assuming the data is valid, it's pretty damning about balance right now.

 

Will WG succeed at balancing them? Good question. If they don't. I'd have my doubts about the longevity of the game (although WoT players put up with daft SPGs for years, so who knows?).

 

Was it a good idea? Well, only the Royal Navy had any number of CVs in WWII, so filling out the rosters of other nations will be complete fiction.

 

Personally I'd be perfectly happy without CVs and the dev time spent on those (and AA and all the other things that resulted) going into more nuanced damage systems and a bunch of other things. I suspect I'm not the only person to feel that way.

 

But I don't call the shots, do I? LOL.

 

I agree, but I am totally noobie at the moment, but after even a few games it dun feel 'right' and I'd luv to just have a sea battle without these annoying mosquitoes buzzing around 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[PBKAC]
Alpha Tester
42 posts
1,414 battles

 

I agree, but I am totally noobie at the moment, but after even a few games it dun feel 'right' and I'd luv to just have a sea battle without these annoying mosquitoes buzzing around 

 

Now you know how most sailors felt during WWII

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
423 posts
3,175 battles

In real life, well, REAL LIFE, the TB hardly dare get close to a BB because of its enormous AA system. The only choice they had is to torp it from 2-4 clicks and hoped the torp hit and exploded.

 

In game, well, surprisingly how a 4-6 torp bomber in a row could swing right through the defense of a small fleet comprised of the best AAs. In reality, screw them. They would turn into mush approaching from 5 clicks away by flak and until it gets into 2 clicks, burning love. That's why the Navy invented vertical dive bombing technique... And still, they have a very big problem at taking down capital ships with this one...

 

I'm not asking for WG to make it a simulation game, but please make it a better game with a little bit of balance. BB nowadays got slammed hard with bad accuracy and drunken secondary; CV became monster due to drunken AA crew with Vodka and Whiskey while DD so underpowered with their only salvation is torpedoes. CA and CL, I'd prefer not to mention much cuz they're pretty much balanced at the moment.

 

Edited by jchen8792

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
4,163 posts
1,874 battles

In real life, well, REAL LIFE, the TB hardly dare get close to a BB because of its enormous AA system. The only choice they had is to torp it from 2-4 clicks and hoped the torp hit and exploded.

 

IJN aerial torpedoes in WWII had a maximum range of around 2km, the Brits could go for 2-3km depending on speed setting, and USN aerial torpedoes had a maximum effective range of around 5km.

 

You're right though - in reality, AA fire would have been murderous on torpedo squadrons. Aerial torpedoes had to be dropped closer in order to guarantee a hit - a fact that resulted in tremendous losses among torpedo squadrons as the minimum firing range of these torpedoes were frequently within the AA envelope of defending ships, and the close the planes got, the more effective AA fire would become. I've suggested in CBT that AA fire should be more effective the closer a torpedo squadron is to any ship. That means carrier captains have to make the tradeoff - lose planes to guarantee more torpedo hits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
358 posts
7,415 battles

I think the main reason for the development of dive bombing was due to the inaccuracy of high altitude bombing and limitations in bomb scopes. This was very obvious due to the limited success of high level bombing during WW2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
423 posts
3,175 battles

I think the main reason for the development of dive bombing was due to the inaccuracy of high altitude bombing and limitations in bomb scopes. This was very obvious due to the limited success of high level bombing during WW2.

 

Yeah, been playing War Thunder and never thought that it was the reason, thanks man!

 

By the way, if the AA systems would still suck hard like it is today, then the amount of annoyance brought by CV would still be very high. Should have make the AA works better, for let's say, if a CV captain travel a little bit closer to any ship, they'd get paid by at least a TB or a DB plane for an attack. More if they dare to attack an entire fleet in a tight formation...

 

 

IJN aerial torpedoes in WWII had a maximum range of around 2km, the Brits could go for 2-3km depending on speed setting, and USN aerial torpedoes had a maximum effective range of around 5km.

 

You're right though - in reality, AA fire would have been murderous on torpedo squadrons. Aerial torpedoes had to be dropped closer in order to guarantee a hit - a fact that resulted in tremendous losses among torpedo squadrons as the minimum firing range of these torpedoes were frequently within the AA envelope of defending ships, and the close the planes got, the more effective AA fire would become. I've suggested in CBT that AA fire should be more effective the closer a torpedo squadron is to any ship. That means carrier captains have to make the tradeoff - lose planes to guarantee more torpedo hits.

 

Learn that the Hard Way from War Thunder... At one time we tried doing the risky maneuver of combining dive bombing and torp run on an AI battleship through the hellish gunfire from Realistic battle with me in a F4U Corsair and my friends on the TB. TB squads got nailed HARD. Most of the planes had to bail out at 4 clicks, while DB (me including) was nailed hard by its AA for only 2 out of 5 make it back to CV to land, all with wing serious damage (black) and me fails to land cuz I got my landing gear torn off by 20-30mm flaks... That's lucky cuz the custom mission didn't have the (EDITED) CV in it...

 

That's safe to say WoWS made every planes from CV like Interceptor from Protoss Carrier. They have Psi-Shield, all of them :D

 

Derogatory Term, Posted Edited, User Sanctioned

~lengxv6

Edited by lengxv6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
45 posts
1,228 battles

Historically torpedo bombers were phased out and replaced by dive bombers towards the end of the war for the following reasons:

 

They had to fly slow and low and straight which made them both easy targets for flak and fighters. Very few survived to fight again. (in game approaches are a total joke and bear no resemblance to reality)

Only about 40% of torps actually worked for the USN at least and most of those that did missed the mark.

Unlike the game aerial delivered torpedoes were easy to dodge as they had to run in the water for a kilometre to arm themselves (unlike the in game ones which can be almost dropped on top of you and be impossible to dodge)

Torpedoes had to set a depth which differs for DDs vs BBs

Most capital ships had torpedo bulges which largely negated the effects of the torps. Those that didn't could die pretty quickly but as an example the Yamoto was torpedoed 11 times of which only one torp did any real damage. It was hit many times by bombs also. It was also attacked by massive amounts of airpower over many hours before it succumbed. In game ive seen it taken out by a single torpedo strike of two mini squadrons.


 

There are way too many torpedos in the game and the CVs do not play even close to realistically. For starters CVs were never anywhere near their targets and only very rarely were engaged by surface ships. Twice I think in their whole history.


 

I think both DDs (which also get some huge numbers of ship kills) and CVs are overpowered.

CAs I think are about right, BBs grossly underpowered with their secondary armenant which should destroy any DD which comes in range very easily (remember the secondaries were as big if not bigger than DDs main armament and should outrange it for the most part) but are gimped in terms of range and accuracy (seriously its like they are being fired by a bunch of blind drunks with vertigo)


 

The game is fun but the plethora of torpedoes in the water and the ability of CVs to one shot anyone if they are a skilled player tend to ruin the experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,634 posts
4,639 battles

Historically torpedo bombers were phased out and replaced by dive bombers towards the end of the war for the following reasons:

 

They had to fly slow and low and straight which made them both easy targets for flak and fighters. Very few survived to fight again. (in game approaches are a total joke and bear no resemblance to reality)

Only about 40% of torps actually worked for the USN at least and most of those that did missed the mark.

Unlike the game aerial delivered torpedoes were easy to dodge as they had to run in the water for a kilometre to arm themselves (unlike the in game ones which can be almost dropped on top of you and be impossible to dodge)

Torpedoes had to set a depth which differs for DDs vs BBs

Most capital ships had torpedo bulges which largely negated the effects of the torps. Those that didn't could die pretty quickly but as an example the Yamoto was torpedoed 11 times of which only one torp did any real damage. It was hit many times by bombs also. It was also attacked by massive amounts of airpower over many hours before it succumbed. In game ive seen it taken out by a single torpedo strike of two mini squadrons.

 

 

There are way too many torpedos in the game and the CVs do not play even close to realistically. For starters CVs were never anywhere near their targets and only very rarely were engaged by surface ships. Twice I think in their whole history.

 

No arguments about torpedo bombers, but if that were to happen we'd need to buff torpedo bombers in other ways that does not really solve the problem but end up aggravating everyone involved. Look at Retia's proposal for a complete overhaul of carrier mechanics to make all planes useful (and hopefully, more realistic).

 

Sniper rifles in FPSes are unrealistic. They generally aren't useable from anything as close as 10 metres (or even 1-2 metres), I can't jump and shoot with them, I can't quickscope them, I'm not going to shoot standing up in the open IRL, aiming at a door.

 

 

Despite this, we still see them in FPSes anyway. They are unrealistic, but they are popular with players and only the truly skilled players will make teams a nightmare as it is (case in point above). Same thing with carriers.

 

I think both DDs (which also get some huge numbers of ship kills) and CVs are overpowered.

CAs I think are about right, BBs grossly underpowered with their secondary armenant which should destroy any DD which comes in range very easily (remember the secondaries were as big if not bigger than DDs main armament and should outrange it for the most part) but are gimped in terms of range and accuracy (seriously its like they are being fired by a bunch of blind drunks with vertigo)

 

 

The game is fun but the plethora of torpedoes in the water and the ability of CVs to one shot anyone if they are a skilled player tend to ruin the experience.

 

You can kill the charging DD's momentum by simply turning away from him. That makes his job much harder.

 

Issuing a general buff to secondary armaments is a big no-no for me because destroyers are fragile enough as it is. One well-placed salvo that close and it's "Goodbye, DD!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
423 posts
3,175 battles

^ About sniper rifle, it was only "unrealistic" in some "arcade game" like Call of Duty, Counter-Strike, and 90% of FPS games (lol)

From Battlefield 3 onward, the zeroing start to take the toll. Result: Not many "snipah" besides from the very good ones. However, besides sniper rifles, any weapon in BF3 and 4 feels like airsoft (seriously).

And that just about zeroing, if you count all the factors into game, then Sniper Game is born, with Sniper Ghost Warrior & Sniper Elite series...

 

Of course, WoWS is indeed ARCADE game (like its cousin WoT also), so I won't scream for "realism". Want realism? War Thunder Naval (hopefully).

 

Historically torpedo bombers were phased out and replaced by dive bombers towards the end of the war for the following reasons:

 

They had to fly slow and low and straight which made them both easy targets for flak and fighters. Very few survived to fight again. (in game approaches are a total joke and bear no resemblance to reality)

Only about 40% of torps actually worked for the USN at least and most of those that did missed the mark.

Unlike the game aerial delivered torpedoes were easy to dodge as they had to run in the water for a kilometre to arm themselves (unlike the in game ones which can be almost dropped on top of you and be impossible to dodge)

Torpedoes had to set a depth which differs for DDs vs BBs

Most capital ships had torpedo bulges which largely negated the effects of the torps. Those that didn't could die pretty quickly but as an example the Yamoto was torpedoed 11 times of which only one torp did any real damage. It was hit many times by bombs also. It was also attacked by massive amounts of airpower over many hours before it succumbed. In game ive seen it taken out by a single torpedo strike of two mini squadrons.

 

Nowadays we're using, er..., naval helicopters as "torpedo bomber" now. So if you mean torpedo bomber had gone extincted, I would disagree with that. However, you are right about the survivability of WW2 TB, as they are slower than dive bomber, isn't much maneuverable and easy prey for protecting fighters and flaks. And also, the WW2 era torpedo are most likely fire and forget weapon, therefore easier to dodge yet requires much more skill to drop one.

 

Just saying

Edited by jchen8792

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
45 posts
1,228 battles

^ About sniper rifle, it was only "unrealistic" in some "arcade game" like Call of Duty, Counter-Strike, and 90% of FPS games (lol)

From Battlefield 3 onward, the zeroing start to take the toll. Result: Not many "snipah" besides from the very good ones. However, besides sniper rifles, any weapon in BF3 and 4 feels like airsoft (seriously).

And that just about zeroing, if you count all the factors into game, then Sniper Game is born, with Sniper Ghost Warrior & Sniper Elite series...

 

Of course, WoWS is indeed ARCADE game (like its cousin WoT also), so I won't scream for "realism". Want realism? War Thunder Naval (hopefully).

 

 

Nowadays we're using, er..., naval helicopters as "torpedo bomber" now. So if you mean torpedo bomber had gone extincted, I would disagree with that. However, you are right about the survivability of WW2 TB, as they are slower than dive bomber, isn't much maneuverable and easy prey for protecting fighters and flaks. And also, the WW2 era torpedo are most likely fire and forget weapon, therefore easier to dodge yet requires much more skill to drop one.

 

Just saying

 

The only air delivered torpedoes are anti submarine so indeed the anti ship torpedo bomber is extinct and was hopeless in WWII. Not only easily detected and avoided but also most large ships were largely immune to its effects due to torpedo bulges.

 

This game could use a healthy dose of historical realism as it is massively gamified at the moment and totally unrealistic in any sense. One of the reasons I do not play WoTanks is that is also massively unrealistic and an appalling simulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
423 posts
3,175 battles

^ War Thunder Naval is coming out in, I don't know...

But hopefully it is a realism choice for Naval Warfare Simulation Game lovers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×