wdolson
Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
It's a game. It's important to remember that.
My understanding with the dispersion on the battleships main armament is that it is to prevent them from sitting at the back edge of the map and lobbing laser accurate shells into anything they can see. Historical? Yes. Good gameplay? No.
Long range gunnery didn't become any good until radar control came on the scene in 1944. The old WW I vintage BBs did quite well as Surigao Strait with radar controlled guns, but that is more the exception than the rule. Long range gunnery before radar control scored the occasional hit, but it wasn't that good.
{quote]
As for ranges, they needed to roll them down to an abstracted number anyways, lest the battles become too long and drawn out.
The rest of your complaints come down to a sacrifice of realism in favor of game-play. Where's the fun in being a carrier when your planes get shredded by AA long before they're useful? Or trying to play a Japanese destroyer when the battleships have you in range long before you can ever get a torpedo off?
Yes, it has it's balancing issues, but I've really enjoyed it so far. I worked up the Japanese destroyer/cruiser trees, both of which were very fun and very different. It's good fun tearing up the side of the map at 35kts to launch torpedoes at battleships and carriers.
Destroyers at full steam in open water were difficult to hit.
There are some inaccuracies in the game, not everything could be modeled perfectly and a lot of compromises had to be made. Only having two types of supply (fuel and supply) and two types of raw resources (oil and resources) is one of the most obvious limits. Dual purpose guns had to be described in the database in a way that works for most DP guns, but not perfectly for all. It's a trade off within the game engine. The overarching goal was to get the end results as close to reality as possible at the cost of some intermediate results being a bit off.
Some inaccuracies favor the player (like lower than historical ops losses for aircraft) and some are not real inaccuracies at all. When we were playtesting, there was a constant stream of complaints about the Pearl Harbor attack results being off. So someone sandboxed it. He ran the first turn something like 50 times, shutting all the way down to the desktop in between. Over all his runs, he got an average of something like 2.1 US BBs sunk, though he had a few outlier runs with 0 sunk and one with 6 sunk.
If someone has a complaint about something being inaccurate in the game, it's possible they are right. It's also possible that on a micro level it's inaccurate, but the macro results are OK, or it's possible it is more accurate than they think and they just don't like the results.
I guess it's like morale in the military. If the troops are complaining, morale is probably pretty decent. If they stop complaining, that's when to get worried.
Bill
_____________________________
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer  |
Printable Version
RE: OT : World of Warships - 
or that the game of chess is the same thing... or... 
by reloading. Given the number of screw-ups I have done as Japan, this has been a lifesaver. Like 'Wow! I had no idea Allied CVs could react so far.' 
Whoops. Reload time 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread