OS Neutral World of Warships

[maflynn]

Playing a cruiser, there is something fundamentally wrong with having to employ hiding behind islands to keep from being shot in a Naval Battle game

Not sure if its the same thing, but both the U.S. Navy and the Imperial Japanese Navy deliberately used coastlines to confuse, mask, or degrade radar detection

 

[Huntn]

Not sure if its the same thing, but both the U.S. Navy and the Imperial Japanese Navy deliberately used coastlines to confuse, mask, or degrade radar detection

Two teams on opposite sides of the map sail towards each other.

• Destroyers with the shortest "seen" distance 6-9km, usually move into to capture zones and spot other ships.
• Cruisers seen 8-12k, all run to hide behind the nearest island. They're weak, if you are seen, everyone in range will try to kill you. Yes, they also try to kill DDs, but if in a DD, you manage your seen distance, you can get a way with a lot as long as another destroyer does not see you. Once destroyers are seen, they usually die pretty fast.
• Battleships seen 11-16km, will use some cover but it's not a critical for them, due to their toughness.

I think back when these ships were used, their guns just were not that accurate. sighting, lead, having to crank guns around to a compass heading. I'm under the impression, that real ships were not as accurate as players in the game.Now maybe I'm wrong... 🤔

In the game, I use a dynamic sight that has numbers, these numbers equate to knots. If I know a ship can move at 30 kts, I lead that ship by about 20 so as to hit it amidships. If the ship is turning, you have to eye ball it and adjust. You can also tell how fast it's going, at full speed, with exhaust smoke trailing out behind the ship or slow, just a small trail of smoke.

 

[SBlue1]

I don't like cruisers sitting behind islands passively. There is so much more you can do depending on the team. Now if my DDs are on a dumb suicide mission to cap I try to save them by killing enemy DDs first and then enemy cruisers. If BBs need my help I protect them from DDs and other cruisers or we attack lonely enemy BBs, my BB is hitting them with AP and I set them on fire. The key is to survive as long as possible so avoid the middle of the map by any means where you can be shot from all sides. Keep distance from BBs so you can see when they fire at you and use your speed to outmaneuver the incoming salvos. Cruisers are the most difficult type to play but also the most rewarding if your team is good and you know your ship. Nothing better than playing the Mainz and raining down fire every fours seconds at slow BBs who can't outrun you, or Perth and sitting in smoke and annoying the hell out of the enemy, or the Leander and leading DDs and wiping enemy Cruisers and DDs.

 

[maflynn]

Two teams on opposite sides of the map sail towards each other.

ahhhhh gotcha

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Huntn]

I don't like cruisers sitting behind islands passively. There is so much more you can do depending on the team. Now if my DDs are on a dumb suicide mission to cap I try to save them by killing enemy DDs first and then enemy cruisers. If BBs need my help I protect them from DDs and other cruisers or we attack lonely enemy BBs, my BB is hitting them with AP and I set them on fire. The key is to survive as long as possible so avoid the middle of the map by any means where you can be shot from all sides. Keep distance from BBs so you can see when they fire at you and use your speed to outmaneuver the incoming salvos. Cruisers are the most difficult type to play but also the most rewarding if your team is good and you know your ship. Nothing better than playing the Mainz and raining down fire every fours seconds at slow BBs who can't outrun you, or Perth and sitting in smoke and annoying the hell out of the enemy, or the Leander and leading DDs and wiping enemy Cruisers and DDs.

I’ll argue the Cruiser is the hardest ship to play. Spacial sensitivity is key, knowing when you are in over your head and avoiding that. Cruisers are most vulnerable. You can’t rely on your team, but sometimes you end up on a good team. If you want an exillerating change of pace check out Metal Storm, so much more fulfilling, fast paced, with 5 by 5 teams, you make a huge difference in the outcome. Frequently in Ships, my group is kicking buttocks on my end of the map, to look up and see we already lost (significant ship deficit), because although there are exceptions, usually a 5 ship deficit is hard to overcome.

 

[Plutonius]

I’ll argue the Cruiser is the hardest ship to play. Spacial sensitivity is key, knowing when you are in over your head and avoiding that. Cruisers are most vulnerable. You can’t rely on your team, but sometimes you end up on a good team. If you want an exillerating change of pace check out Metal Storm, so much more fulfilling, fast paced, with 5 by 5 teams, you make a huge difference in the outcome. Frequently in Ships, my group is kicking buttocks on my end of the map, to look up and see we already lost (significant ship deficit), because although there are exceptions, usually a 5 ship deficit is hard to overcome.

I never played but I can't see players wanting a ship so difficult to run and being forced to hide behind islands.

If the battlecruiser is not a class in the game, it seems to me that everyone would want a battleship.

 

[Huntn]

I never played but I can't see players wanting a ship so difficult to run and being forced to hide behind islands.

If the battlecruiser is not a class in the game, it seems to me that everyone would want a battleship.

Each is distinctly different. Choices were made, primarily sight distances for playability and HP (hit points) that determine how many hits your vessel can take. The only way to make this game more realistic as constructed would be to make the guns less accurate and more significantly deadly, so when you hit, appropriate degradation would happen*, and by doing away with the health scale. When you are hit, the primary result is a loss of health, you may have a resulting fire which erodes health, or damaged equipment, which can be repaired.

*War Thunder actually has a more realistic setup, where when you are hit, there is usually significant loss of capability, not just taking from a health pool.

 

[Plutonius]

Each is distinctly different. Choices were made, primarily sight distances for playability and HP (hit points) that determine how many hits your vessel can take. The only way to make this game more realistic as constructed would be to make the guns less accurate and more significantly deadly, so when you hit, appropriate degradation would happen*, and by doing away with the health scale. When you are hit, the primary result is a loss of health, you may have a resulting fire which erodes health, or damaged equipment, which can be repaired.

*War Thunder actually has a more realistic setup, where when you are hit, there is usually significant loss of capability, not just taking from a health pool.

So, is World of Warships more of an arcade game and War Thunder more of a simulator ?

 

[Huntn]

So, is World of Warships more of an arcade game and War Thunder more of a simulator ?

Hmmm… yeah kind of, but they feel different. War Thunder (tanks) has different levels that can be played. The top level is the most unforgiving and simulator realistic, but the controls are way simpler than an actual simulation. Their tanks are the best developed. They have ships and airplanes too in mixed arenas, like boats and planes. Not sure if the boats and planes are as realistic as the tanks at the top level.

World of Warships has a more developed ship arena than WT at least the last time I tried WT.
World of Tanks is more arcade than War Thunder tanks.