|
Post by frank1311 on May 29, 2019 15:55:36 GMT -6
Well, I dont think that it is THAT bad, BUT: I see a very big difference between playing a "computer games" and playing a "computer´s game", if you get what I mean... Oh i'm pickin' up what you're puttin' down.
I just don't get it. I just spent Two whole days of playing this game (something like 6-7 hours a day...pathetic, I know) as the USA, and systematically built every battleship historically built by the US, although some 6-12 years delayed from the historical schedule. I had these experiences before where I would not be put into any Capital ship battles, so I intentionally ignored DD's and CL's for all except Trade Protection duties, and instead relied on BB's and CVL's to do the heavy lifting.
From 1920, to 1946 I fought through 3 wars against 3 separate countries and never once was greeted with a Battleship engagement, even when they were the ONLY ships in the same operational sector as enemy ships. I watched helplessly as the enemy vanguard of some 4 BB's and 2 BC's switched from region to region running from my 2-4 BB's for decades, declining every single chance for an engagement. (Why in the world can the AI decline in the first place?). Eventually after 14 hours of gameplay and not a single capital ship engagement even when the ONLY Active ships in my fleet were capital ships, I gave up and uninstalled.
Of course, there will be some to claim this is "Realistic and Immersive". Nonsense. It's broken.
And i won't reinstall until something profound changes within the mechanics of the current game.
I didn't pay to watch DD's and CL's fight for 20 years, and I understand why Jutland only happened once. Don't attempt to explain to me the historical precedent for Battleship engagements any how they're massive investments of capital and not to be taken lightly, so naturally engagements will be sparse. I get that.
My position is that this is a game. Let me fight with the ships I spend literally DAYS designing, otherwise this is complete waste of my time.
If anyone attempts to justify the events that transpired as 'realistic' they'll be seen as a witless dunce and ignored accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by hmssophia on May 29, 2019 16:00:34 GMT -6
So, I'm also frustrated you can't decide what ships are in what formation and so on, but... Y'all know that IRL Admiral's didn't, like... send out orders that read "HMS Cagliaria, Monaco and Fox, go and engage this enemy CA here at this time". A lot of real life battles were random as all heck, lucky encounters, disastrous bad lack an so on. Yeah, it sucks that you finally bring the enemy to face your battle line and it's blowing a gale, but, uh... I mean there's a reason that the concept of mahanian decisive battle was pretty much proven wrong at Jutland. This game is actually pretty weird for how often I'm thrown into major fleet engagements. It could be better in areas, yeah, but it's a functional game where I see, say, the Italian fleet as Austro-Hungary about every six months. Too often? Yes. Happens? Also yes. Is it even sometimes a daylight battle in good conditions? Amazingly - also yes.
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on May 29, 2019 16:02:18 GMT -6
Random numbers include streaks of bad luck. Sometimes you're the Dreadnought who rams a submarine to death, sometimes you're the Hood getting wtfpwned by a single lucky shell. Them's the breaks. Proper design and tactics improve your odds, but they're no guarantee in any individual battle. Is that Welsh?
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 29, 2019 16:02:55 GMT -6
I just don't get it. I just spend Two whole days of playing this game (something like 6-7 hours a day...pathetic, I know) as the USA, and systematically built every battleship historically built by the US at the timeAnd as we all know US battleships historically built at the time went on to fight Battleship fights month in and out in the wars the US got into. Oh wait...they only fired against enemy battleships TWICE...and in the second they couldn't even see them as Surigao Strait was fought 100% by blind radar fire. I can picture already the reactions of the designers in the US Navy who worked on that ship, in their old age, beers in hand at the local bar: "Dude....months to no end working on the design of those warships, and the game only gave us the chance to use it against enemy battleships twice in 4 years of world war. And that because we were lucky: In WW1 they didn't even get to engage the germans, and not because the 9th Battle Squadron didn't try." "Yah, dude, game's obviously bugged, broken, and is not immersive enough. I wish I had chosen another career". Big battleships engagements in history can be counted with one hand. If anything in the game are far too common for what it really happened in history. Also I wonder what do you think fleets of the time were made of, and why they wasted money and resources on other ships than battleships. Managing a fleet doesn't mean taking your big guns for a ride all the time - most of the tasks accomplished by fleets of the time were done so by DDs and Cruisers, battleships being out looking for trouble being a very rare sight.
If anyone attempts to justify the events that transpired as 'realistic' they'll be seen as a witless dunce and ignored accordingly.
Best laugh of the week. Thanks .
|
|
|
Post by frank1311 on May 29, 2019 16:06:14 GMT -6
I just don't get it. I just spend Two whole days of playing this game (something like 6-7 hours a day...pathetic, I know) as the USA, and systematically built every battleship historically built by the US at the timeAnd as we all know US battleships historically built at the time went on to fight Battleship fights month in and out in the wars the US got into. Oh wait...they only fired against enemy battleships TWICE...and in the second they couldn't even see them as Surigao Strait was fought 100% by blind radar fire. I can picture already the reactions of the designers in the US Navy who worked on that ship, in their old age, beers in hand at the local bar: "Dude....months to no end working on the design of those warships, and the game only gave us the chance to use it against enemy battleships twice in 4 years. Game's obviously bugged, broken, and is not immersive enough". Big battleships engagements in history can be counted with one hand. If anything in the game are far too common for what it really happened in history. Also I wonder what do you think fleets of the time were made of, and why they wasted money and resources on other ships than battleships. Managing a fleet doesn't mean taking your big guns for a ride all the time - most of the tasks accomplished by fleets of the time were done so by DDs and Cruisers, battleships being out looking for trouble being a very rare sight. TL;DR
Do you ever notice no one replies to you on this forum?
You will be ignored on this thread (as every other thread) as you have proven time and time again to only exacerbate problems be giving long-winded tangents that are wholly irrelevant to the issues at hand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2019 16:06:50 GMT -6
Well, I dont think that it is THAT bad, BUT: I see a very big difference between playing a "computer games" and playing a "computer´s game", if you get what I mean... Oh i'm pickin' up what you're puttin' down.
I just don't get it. I just spent Two whole days of playing this game (something like 6-7 hours a day...pathetic, I know) as the USA, and systematically built every battleship historically built by the US, although some 6-12 years delayed from the historical schedule. I had these experiences before where I would not be put into any Capital ship battles, so I intentionally ignored DD's and CL's for all except Trade Protection duties, and instead relied on BB's and CVL's to do the heavy lifting.
From 1920, to 1946 I fought through 3 wars against 3 separate countries and never once was greeted with a Battleship engagement, even when they were the ONLY ships in the same operational sector as enemy ships. I watched helplessly as the enemy vanguard of some 4 BB's and 2 BC's switched from region to region running from my 2-4 BB's for decades, declining every single chance for an engagement. (Why in the world can the AI decline in the first place?). Eventually after 14 hours of gameplay and not a single capital ship engagement even when the ONLY Active ships in my fleet were capital ships, I gave up and uninstalled.
Of course, there will be some to claim this is "Realistic and Immersive". Nonsense. It's broken.
And i won't reinstall until something profound changes within the mechanics of the current game.
I agree. If you have faster capital ships in region where enemy has no ports, there should be no way of AI declining battle. How the hell would they like to do that IRL? Curse me to keep my distance? Hell no, I would chase them down and beat the living hell out of their whole fleet in that region just like Royal Navy did in the battle of Falklands in 1914 (and yes, I really dont care that the enemy would have BBs and BCs, not just CAs and CLs like Maxmilian von Spee). Also the players navy constantly feels "smaller" than the AI´s navy, even when its in fact much bigger. Because AI tends to have 100% of their forces deployed into the battle, but player is lucky if he has 50% of his ship present. So in battleship engagement AI has 5 out of 5 battleships present, I have just 3 out of 8. So the enemy has almost 2:1 superiority even with his smaller navy... Yeah, it is broken. Like I stated before - Its like Lutjens having Bismarck, Eugen, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau with Graf Zeppelin all present just against PoW and Hood. Thats rubbish, if I have to use euphemism to dodge bans...
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 29, 2019 16:08:16 GMT -6
You just did answer to me. Thanks, I was extremely worried about it . (though I'd rather be ignored by people who go around calling others "witless dunces", but hey, thanks for the very much needed attention ).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2019 16:08:52 GMT -6
I just don't get it. I just spend Two whole days of playing this game (something like 6-7 hours a day...pathetic, I know) as the USA, and systematically built every battleship historically built by the US at the timeAnd as we all know US battleships historically built at the time went on to fight Battleship fights month in and out in the wars the US got into. Oh wait...they only fired against enemy battleships TWICE...and in the second they couldn't even see them as Surigao Strait was fought 100% by blind radar fire. I can picture already the reactions of the designers in the US Navy who worked on that ship, in their old age, beers in hand at the local bar: "Dude....months to no end working on the design of those warships, and the game only gave us the chance to use it against enemy battleships twice in 4 years. Game's obviously bugged, broken, and is not immersive enough". Big battleships engagements in history can be counted with one hand. If anything in the game are far too common for what it really happened in history. Also I wonder what do you think fleets of the time were made of, and why they wasted money and resources on other ships than battleships. Managing a fleet doesn't mean taking your big guns for a ride all the time - most of the tasks accomplished by fleets of the time were done so by DDs and Cruisers, battleships being out looking for trouble being a very rare sight. TL:DR
Do you ever notice no one replies to you on this forum?
You will be ignored on this thread as you have proven time and time again to only exacerbate issues be giving long-winded tangents that are wholly irrelevant to the issues at hand.
I dont think that you have to be that mean on him. He tries to use anything he knows to defend the game he likes, not like that is a thing I can blame him for...
|
|
|
Post by frank1311 on May 29, 2019 16:12:42 GMT -6
I dont think that you have to be that mean on him. He tries to use anything he knows to defend the game he likes, not like that is a thing I can blame him for... Even completely unjustifiable mechanics to the detriment of the game and at the expense of every other player that has an issue with the current system.
I can blame him for that, easily.
I'm new here, but there's one conclusion that I've drawn.
He consistently and routinely obstructs and obfuscates threads that introduce valid criticism and feedback from paying customers. That alone is a mortal sin in game development that should not be tolerated to any extent.
|
|
|
Post by hoffmads on May 29, 2019 16:13:34 GMT -6
In my current Royal Navy play-through I'm into 1926 and have fought wars against Germany, Russia, and currently, the U.S. I've had maybe half a dozen fleet battles, several battleship engagements, and a number of convoy missions which have turned into capital ship brawls, so it's surprising to hear that others haven't had these sorts of experiences. Additionally, a fair number of my battles have been reasonably balanced. Perhaps countries with a Northern Europe home region are more likely to get full-on engagements due to the proximity of the main event fleet?
In any case, I've had a blast in the battles I've had, even in my most recent where my battleline's full on pursuit of the broken American battleline ran into shoals of torpedoes and turned to disaster in two minutes, so I would advise anyone who isn't getting good engagements not to give up, and perhaps to try again with a different country.
|
|
|
Post by hmssophia on May 29, 2019 16:13:59 GMT -6
I think part of the problem here is there's two groups arguing: 1. People who want to play a game. They feel cheated if they don't get to sail those big BB's into battle and slap their enemies around (or get slapped, all's fair in war and... war). 2. People who want to simulate naval history. They want a realistic rate of major combats, to organise their fleets and try to manage with what they get offered.
These groups have a lot of overlaps and both raise solid points. We both want better ways of organising our ships prior to a fight, we both want better mechanics for getting into those fights. But for group 2, the game is working as intended, it just needs some polish to make it perfect. Meanwhile group 1 feels cheated. They feel the game is 'broken'.
Sadly for group 1, I am firmly part of group 2. I appreciate an inconclusive clash, a few sharp destroyer raids, and a solidly dull war sometimes. But for many, that's not the most exciting of games and so I see group 1's point, to an extent.
|
|
euchrejack
Full Member
Don't feed the Trolls. They just get bigger and more numerous.
Posts: 139
|
Post by euchrejack on May 29, 2019 16:15:28 GMT -6
Thought I'd post what I posted on another forum: "Speaking of realism:
So I was playing Imperialistic Austria-Hungary, taking over the Mediterranean one island at a time. Then Italy, my favorite punching bag, gets an alliance with Russia. So what, the inept bear wants to try fishing in my pond. But Russia is allied with United Kingdom, so I figure I'm boned.
I try everything in my power to avoid war with the Triple Alliance, but then one of them (I think Fascist Italy) declares war on ME. So they all declare war on me.
I lose my first naval battle, as expected. My country is under blockade. Then, the mighty British Empire's fleet engages mine, Battleship vs. Battleship.
Turret hit on British Battleship, boom Battleship blows up. Turret hit on British Battleship, boom Battleship blows up. I guess the British are about as good at handling their ammo stores in my game as in real life. And then I'm the one blockading Italy."
So the RNG takes and the RNG gives. Personally, I can live with that. For the record, in my game with Austria-Hungary I've seen like three Battleship engagements. As you can see from the above, they were decisive (although I should probably finish up this war before I declare victory).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2019 16:19:01 GMT -6
I dont think that you have to be that mean on him. He tries to use anything he knows to defend the game he likes, not like that is a thing I can blame him for... Even completely unjustifiable mechanics to the detriment of the game and at the expense of every other player that has an issue with the current system.
I can blame him for that, easily.
I'm new here, but there's one conclusion that I've drawn.
He consistently and routinely obstructs and obfuscates threads that introduce valid criticism and feedback from paying customers. That alone is a mortal sin in game development that should not be tolerated to any extent.
Maybe true, maybe not. But its not like people here use mean sentences against each other for whatever reason. He has an opinion I´ve encountered a few times before. These people has opinions that could be summarized like "the harded it is, the more realistic it gets", but thats 1) not exactly true 2) not the point of PC games. Even simulators like Train sim world, or IL-2 sturmovik FB, or Euro truck simulators are not 100% realistic. However that games are immersive, that is not the same as realistic. Hell, even Silent Hunter III with the Grey wolves and 100% realistic settings is not realistic, so I dont really see the point why these people tend to use some IRL examples to defend booring or broken game mechanics...
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 29, 2019 16:20:57 GMT -6
Even completely unjustifiable mechanics to the detriment of the game and at the expense of every other player that has an issue with the current system.
I can blame him for that, easily.
I'm new here, but there's one conclusion that I've drawn.
He consistently and routinely obstructs and obfuscates threads that introduce valid criticism and feedback from paying customers. That alone is a mortal sin in game development that should not be tolerated to any extent.
You're so beyond your own mind that it's even funny to witness. Besides, the idea that the "completely unjustifiable mechanics" of this game are so, is only valid from the perception of those who don't understand naval history beyond having played WoWS for a couple of months. Just to name one more instance: historically two of the biggest fleets of all history sat front to front across the North Sea for 4 years and only engaged once in a big battle, and half a dozen in small scale running skirmishes. I guess real navies also worked on completely unjustifiable mechanics to the detriment of every "player" who had an issue with the current system. Namely, the Kaiser (and the british popular opinion who were waiting for another trafalgar). It's been explained already several times over: this game was designed with the idea of incorporating what real naval warfare of the first century of the 20th century was. And it wasn't a concatenation of big fleet battles with guns blazing everywhere. Anyway, wow, reading your posts is just incredible. The internet, truly full of colorful individuals .
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on May 29, 2019 16:24:34 GMT -6
I dont think that you have to be that mean on him. He tries to use anything he knows to defend the game he likes, not like that is a thing I can blame him for... Even completely unjustifiable mechanics to the detriment of the game and at the expense of every other player that has an issue with the current system.
I can blame him for that, easily.
I'm new here, but there's one conclusion that I've drawn.
He consistently and routinely obstructs and obfuscates threads that introduce valid criticism and feedback from paying customers. That alone is a mortal sin in game development that should not be tolerated to any extent.
Regarding battleship engagements, as continental European powers I rarely get this issue. Perhaps 1 in 4-5 battle will be battleship/fleet engagement. AI also always accept if you don’t have a huge advantage over them. I have never played USA so I can’t comment. Against USA as France tho they had no problem throwing 7-8BB at me. maybe try a different power if that’s an issue for you. I will likewise place japan on hold until the ai is fixed to be willing to commit force into the future at east. In the end, setting any historical realism aside for the aske of this argument, from a pure mechanical perspective I do not find battle generation or rng in battle broken. As I have pointed above, It could potentially be im just very lucky, but again, I think there are players that will agree with me. That's not to say RTW2 is not without its problems, and indeed sometime a degree of realism does need to be sacrificed to make things workable. But I do want to point out that taking a very extreme position on battle generation and RNG may be a form of confirmation bias going on here. Other issues are more easily observable as being issues, we know that we cant designate certain design as being priority escort, we know that we cant force a battle to break a blockade. On the otherhand, we don't know if RNG is skewed in anyway and we have contradictory observations, we don't know if battleship engagement is either rigged or never happens. (BTW I actually don't think having ONLY battle ships help make it happen, BB engagement scenario have CL and DDs present as well, so you may need some of those.) Lastly don't look for "battleship engagement" in particular, a lot of my BB engagement started as Large sized convoy attack/defend or land bombardment missions. If you find certain game design feature not to your liking, feel free to point them out. But do bear in mind this game is made with realism in mind, so it will almost be certain that people will use that as a defense. You don't have to agree with that argument, but insulting them as witless does not help your case. Please do keep things respectful.
|
|