Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2019 16:26:35 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 . I find your tone highly provocative and I think that you should really stop and think about it. About your WWI argument: those navies had loads of opportunities to clash with each other, the leaders just didnt want to. But now its the player who is in charge. If he wants to, he should have plenty of opportunities to do so, especially if his foe (like UK for example) wants it even more.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 29, 2019 16:38:39 GMT -6
I find your tone highly provocative
oh I'm extremely sorry. Maybe I should resort to call others witless dunces, I guess that would be far less provocative?. I saw your mild answer to him, yet I don't recall you telling the individual who uttered those words in this very thread that he was being very offensive and that he should stop...
But seems that me, who has insulted noone, is using a highly provocative tone. Wow.
"Those navies had loads of opportunities to clash with each other"
No, not really. Both fleets put to sea in strenght a couple of times before Jutland and it wasn't leadership that prevented an engagement, it was confused intelligence, bad weather, squadrons coming close to clash with each other but passing close by in the dark of the night without noticing each other, etc.
For the first year and a half of the war (until the battle of the Dogger Bank and the loss of Blücher) the german fleet was actively looking for a fight with the british trying to tie a part of their battlefleet down in distracting actions and destroying it in detail before the Grand Fleet could arrive. Nothing came out of it, other than the named Dogger Bank, and a couple of very limited scale skirmishes that led to nothing. So it wasn't for a lack of trying.
Same after Jutland, though with far less intensity - but the german fleet sailed several times in several operations and nothing came out of it. Not because of the leaders not wanting to, but rather because the smaller side was cautious enough to only push for a battle they could win - and they could win none. Jutland in fact was a massive accident, if anything.
At any rate, both in WW1 and WW2 we saw that naval engagements with capital ships were rather rare. They weren't happening all around the place each couple months, as some people around here seem to think should be the norm.
Sometimes it took whole years from big fleet engagement to big engagement. In the pacific for instance almost 2 full years between Santa Cruz and the MArianas, for instance). The rest were all minor engagement where the main protagonists were mostly cruisers and destroyers, with the random operation including carriers (Such as the attack on Truk) here and there.
In the European theater the whole Home Fleet (and the attached american units) was at standby to answer to any attempt from the germans to intercept convoys - yet those battleships never entered true surface action since the sinking of Bismarck until Scharnhorst was caught at the North Cape. Again, more than 2 and a half years in the interim.
In the mediterranean and after TArento the italians never even tried engaging the english in a straight fight either - and that was the 4th biggest navy of the time vs the 2nd biggest one, in an enclosed sea.
Be it as you like, naval engagements during the Dreadnought era were mostly protagonized by cruisers and destroyers - battleships in combat were a very rare sight. It was what it was, and if anything the game has too many of them. Not that I complain, I also enjoy seeing huge battlefleets shooting each other so I like it that it isn't as rare in the game. I just don't expect it to be a common occurrence.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on May 29, 2019 16:44:01 GMT -6
I find your tone highly provocativeoh I'm extremely sorry. Maybe I should resort to call others witless dunces, I guess that would be far less provocative?. I saw your mild answer to him, yet I don't recall you telling the individual who uttered those words in this very thread that he was being very offensive and that he should stop... But seems that me, who has insulted noone, is using a highly provocative tone. Wow. "Those navies had loads of opportunities to clash with each other"No, not really. Both fleets put to sea in strenght a couple of times before Jutland and it wasn't leadership that prevented an engagement, it was confused intelligence, bad weather, squadrons coming close to clash with each other but passing close by in the dark of the night without noticing each other, etc. For the first year and a half of the war (until the battle of the Dogger Bank and the loss of Blücher) the german fleet was actively looking for a fight with the british trying to tie a part of their battlefleet down in distracting actions and destroying it in detail before the Grand Fleet could arrive. Nothing came out of it, other than the named Dogger Bank, and a couple of very limited scale skirmishes that led to nothing. No big fleet encounter, nothing. Same after Jutland, though with far less intensity - but the german fleet sailed several times in several operations and nothing came out of it. Not because of the leaders not wanting to, but rather because the smaller side was cautious enough to only push for a battle they could win - and they could win none. Jutland in fact was a massive accident, if anything. At any rate, both in WW1 and WW2 we saw that naval engagements were rather rare. They weren't happening all around the place each couple months. Sometimes it took whole years from big engagement to big engagemen. In the pacific for instance almost 2 full years between Santa Cruz and the MArianas, for instance). The rest were all minor engagement where the main protagonists were mostly cruisers and destroyers, with the random operation including carriers (Such as the attack on Truk) here and there. In the European theater the whole Home Fleet (and the attached american units) was at standby to answer to any attempt from the germans to intercept convoys - yet those battleships never entered true surface action since the sinking of Bismarck until Scharnhorst was caught at the North Cape. Again, more than 2 and a half years in the interim. In the mediterranean and after TArento the italians never even tried engaging the english in a straight fight either - and that was the 4th biggest navy of the time vs the 2nd biggest one, in an enclosed sea. Be it as you like, naval engagements during the Dreadnought era were mostly protagonized by cruisers and destroyers - battleships in combat were a very rare sight. It was what it was. Bear in mind that RTW is an "Alternative History" game, not a historical documentary. The fact that BB battles are rare in WW1/2 should not preclude them from actually being common in RTW. For example, had Germany was able to build up a fleet more comparable to the Grand Fleet in RTW, whose to say they wouldn't engage a series of engagement against the Grandfleet? If Aircraft carrier had been less dominant because a Japanese-American War started in the 20s, whose to say we wont see decisive dreadnought engagements. Bottom line is while I am also firmly in the camp that I prefer RTW to be a realistic game, that realism should be based on "Plausibility" not accurate replication of history. Regarding the tone here, I cant say "witless dunce" is an acceptable comment at all in this forum, but at this point pressing this further will just likely escalate the situation. Best just leave it to the Mods to deal with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2019 16:44:29 GMT -6
I find your tone highly provocativeoh I'm extremely sorry. Maybe I should resort to call others witless dunces, I guess that would be far less provocative?. I saw your mild answer to him, yet I don't recall you telling the individual who uttered those words in this very thread that he was being very offensive and that he should stop... But seems that me, who has insulted noone, is using a highly provocative tone. Wow. "Those navies had loads of opportunities to clash with each other"No, not really. Both fleets put to sea in strenght a couple of times before Jutland and it wasn't leadership that prevented an engagement, it was confused intelligence, bad weather, squadrons coming close to clash with each other but passing close by in the dark of the night without noticing each other, etc. For the first year and a half of the war (until the battle of the Dogger Bank and the loss of Blücher) the german fleet was actively looking for a fight with the british trying to tie a part of their battlefleet down in distracting actions and destroying it in detail before the Grand Fleet could arrive. Nothing came out of it, other than the named Dogger Bank, and a couple of very limited scale skirmishes that led to nothing. So it wasn't for a lack of trying. Same after Jutland, though with far less intensity - but the german fleet sailed several times in several operations and nothing came out of it. Not because of the leaders not wanting to, but rather because the smaller side was cautious enough to only push for a battle they could win - and they could win none. Jutland in fact was a massive accident, if anything. At any rate, both in WW1 and WW2 we saw that naval engagements with capital ships were rather rare. They weren't happening all around the place each couple months, as some people around here seem to think should be the norm. Sometimes it took whole years from big fleet engagement to big engagement. In the pacific for instance almost 2 full years between Santa Cruz and the MArianas, for instance). The rest were all minor engagement where the main protagonists were mostly cruisers and destroyers, with the random operation including carriers (Such as the attack on Truk) here and there. In the European theater the whole Home Fleet (and the attached american units) was at standby to answer to any attempt from the germans to intercept convoys - yet those battleships never entered true surface action since the sinking of Bismarck until Scharnhorst was caught at the North Cape. Again, more than 2 and a half years in the interim. In the mediterranean and after TArento the italians never even tried engaging the english in a straight fight either - and that was the 4th biggest navy of the time vs the 2nd biggest one, in an enclosed sea. Be it as you like, naval engagements during the Dreadnought era were mostly protagonized by cruisers and destroyers - battleships in combat were a very rare sight. It was what it was. About that witless dunces, I´ve already answered to that guy and told him to calm down. About the other thing - many things you described was just a "decline battle" IRL. So if the player does not decline battle, there should be much more common major battles than IRL.
|
|
|
Post by hoffmads on May 29, 2019 16:47:24 GMT -6
I find your tone highly provocativeoh I'm extremely sorry. Maybe I should resort to call others witless dunces, I guess that would be far less provocative?. I saw your mild answer to him, yet I don't recall you telling the individual who uttered those words in this very thread that he was being very offensive and that he should stop... But seems that me, who has insulted noone, is using a highly provocative tone. Wow. "Those navies had loads of opportunities to clash with each other"No, not really. Both fleets put to sea in strenght a couple of times before Jutland and it wasn't leadership that prevented an engagement, it was confused intelligence, bad weather, squadrons coming close to clash with each other but passing close by in the dark of the night without noticing each other, etc. For the first year and a half of the war (until the battle of the Dogger Bank and the loss of Blücher) the german fleet was actively looking for a fight with the british trying to tie a part of their battlefleet down in distracting actions and destroying it in detail before the Grand Fleet could arrive. Nothing came out of it, other than the named Dogger Bank, and a couple of very limited scale skirmishes that led to nothing. So it wasn't for a lack of trying. Same after Jutland, though with far less intensity - but the german fleet sailed several times in several operations and nothing came out of it. Not because of the leaders not wanting to, but rather because the smaller side was cautious enough to only push for a battle they could win - and they could win none. Jutland in fact was a massive accident, if anything. At any rate, both in WW1 and WW2 we saw that naval engagements with capital ships were rather rare. They weren't happening all around the place each couple months, as some people around here seem to think should be the norm. Sometimes it took whole years from big fleet engagement to big engagement. In the pacific for instance almost 2 full years between Santa Cruz and the MArianas, for instance). The rest were all minor engagement where the main protagonists were mostly cruisers and destroyers, with the random operation including carriers (Such as the attack on Truk) here and there. In the European theater the whole Home Fleet (and the attached american units) was at standby to answer to any attempt from the germans to intercept convoys - yet those battleships never entered true surface action since the sinking of Bismarck until Scharnhorst was caught at the North Cape. Again, more than 2 and a half years in the interim. In the mediterranean and after TArento the italians never even tried engaging the english in a straight fight either - and that was the 4th biggest navy of the time vs the 2nd biggest one, in an enclosed sea. Be it as you like, naval engagements during the Dreadnought era were mostly protagonized by cruisers and destroyers - battleships in combat were a very rare sight. It was what it was, and if anything the game has too many of them. Not that I complain, I also enjoy seeing huge battlefleets shooting each other so I like it that it isn't as rare in the game. I just don't expect it to be a common occurrence. I agree with this. The thing is, real-life admirals were not too keen on risking the destruction of ships that has taken years, and tremendous amounts of money, to design and build and would take years to replace. If anything, the game provides more opportunities for decisive battles than real life. Not that I'm complaining about that, it's balanced about right to make the game enjoyable without departing too far from realism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2019 16:51:26 GMT -6
I find your tone highly provocativeoh I'm extremely sorry. Maybe I should resort to call others witless dunces, I guess that would be far less provocative?. I saw your mild answer to him, yet I don't recall you telling the individual who uttered those words in this very thread that he was being very offensive and that he should stop... But seems that me, who has insulted noone, is using a highly provocative tone. Wow. "Those navies had loads of opportunities to clash with each other"No, not really. Both fleets put to sea in strenght a couple of times before Jutland and it wasn't leadership that prevented an engagement, it was confused intelligence, bad weather, squadrons coming close to clash with each other but passing close by in the dark of the night without noticing each other, etc. For the first year and a half of the war (until the battle of the Dogger Bank and the loss of Blücher) the german fleet was actively looking for a fight with the british trying to tie a part of their battlefleet down in distracting actions and destroying it in detail before the Grand Fleet could arrive. Nothing came out of it, other than the named Dogger Bank, and a couple of very limited scale skirmishes that led to nothing. So it wasn't for a lack of trying. Same after Jutland, though with far less intensity - but the german fleet sailed several times in several operations and nothing came out of it. Not because of the leaders not wanting to, but rather because the smaller side was cautious enough to only push for a battle they could win - and they could win none. Jutland in fact was a massive accident, if anything. At any rate, both in WW1 and WW2 we saw that naval engagements with capital ships were rather rare. They weren't happening all around the place each couple months, as some people around here seem to think should be the norm. Sometimes it took whole years from big fleet engagement to big engagement. In the pacific for instance almost 2 full years between Santa Cruz and the MArianas, for instance). The rest were all minor engagement where the main protagonists were mostly cruisers and destroyers, with the random operation including carriers (Such as the attack on Truk) here and there. In the European theater the whole Home Fleet (and the attached american units) was at standby to answer to any attempt from the germans to intercept convoys - yet those battleships never entered true surface action since the sinking of Bismarck until Scharnhorst was caught at the North Cape. Again, more than 2 and a half years in the interim. In the mediterranean and after TArento the italians never even tried engaging the english in a straight fight either - and that was the 4th biggest navy of the time vs the 2nd biggest one, in an enclosed sea. Be it as you like, naval engagements during the Dreadnought era were mostly protagonized by cruisers and destroyers - battleships in combat were a very rare sight. It was what it was, and if anything the game has too many of them. Not that I complain, I also enjoy seeing huge battlefleets shooting each other so I like it that it isn't as rare in the game. I just don't expect it to be a common occurrence. I also think that you mix the blue and the black line together maybe a bit too much. Rule the waves is different than real life from the very T-0. Every nation starts with same technology, so I think that things in the world started to differ from our real world as soon as in the middle of the 19th century, if not earlier. You should remember that when you write down another WWI/II example...
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 29, 2019 16:52:52 GMT -6
I´ve already answered to that guy and told him to calm down.
Compare the following statements:
I find your tone highly provocative and I think that you should really stop and think about it. (to someone who hasn't insulted anyone in this thread)
With:
I dont think that you have to be that mean on him. (to someone who just said that anyone who argues anything against his posture is a witless dunce)
Excuse me if I get lost in the translation, but I do notice a "slight" difference between both adresses.
I'll leave it at that. Point has been made, examples have been issued, explanations have been given as for why things are as they are. Going beyond would be beating the proverbial horse for no ultimate purpose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2019 16:54:26 GMT -6
I´ve already answered to that guy and told him to calm down.Compare the following statements: I find your tone highly provocative and I think that you should really stop and think about it. (to someone who hasn't insulted anyone in this thread) With: I dont think that you have to be that mean on him. (to someone who just said that anyone who argues anything against his posture is a witless dunce) Excuse me if I get lost in the translation, but I do notice a "slight" difference between both adresses. I'll leave it at that. Point has been made, examples have been issued, explanations have been given as for why things are as they are. Going beyond would be beating the proverbial horse for no ultimate purpose. Yeah, compare that lack of feel for the language of a non-native speaker, thats sure the best thing you can do to make a point... sure... I dont really know if "dont be mean" is a strong enough sentence in english and I dont give a damn... In translation to my native language it should be at least as much effective as just plain informing someone what his statement looks like...
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on May 29, 2019 16:59:00 GMT -6
I´ve already answered to that guy and told him to calm down.Compare the following statements: I find your tone highly provocative and I think that you should really stop and think about it. (to someone who hasn't insulted anyone in this thread) With: I dont think that you have to be that mean on him. (to someone who just said that anyone who argues anything against his posture is a witless dunce) Excuse me if I get lost in the translation, but I do notice a "slight" difference between both adresses. I'll leave it at that. Point has been made, examples have been issued, explanations have been given as for why things are as they are. Going beyond would be beating the proverbial horse for no ultimate purpose. I think we have at this point strayed far from what was being discussed in this thread. Regardless of choice of words Pavelst is being reasonable in asking for this to be dropped. Keep arguing over this will not be helpful and will only escalate the issue. Its best we drop it and move on before mods are involved.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 29, 2019 17:00:39 GMT -6
I'm a non native speaker myself and while I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, certainly the tone wasn't as stern in one instance when compared with the other one. I'm not trying to make a point out of it, I already explicitly said "excuse me if I get lost in the translation"; all I'm saying is that you didn't come across in the same way when you answered my posts than when you were answering someone else's.
Anyway as I said, this topic for me has run it's course, so I'll leave it at this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2019 17:06:54 GMT -6
I would like to summarize my opinion on the arguments from the last 2 pages of this thread.
Even the green line may be very much different than the black one, but mixing together the red lines and the blue line is a total nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on May 29, 2019 17:09:24 GMT -6
At this point, "I wonder what they serve at the officer's mess"
(Tension +)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2019 17:17:42 GMT -6
At this point, "I wonder what they serve at the officer's mess" (Tension +) I´ve never figured out what that sentence means. Any attempt to translate it literally fails. "I wonder (why?) what (what is expect here?) they (who?) serve at the officer´s mess (mess? Like untidiness? What sense does it make?)"
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on May 29, 2019 17:20:31 GMT -6
At this point, "I wonder what they serve at the officer's mess" (Tension +) I´ve never figured out what that sentence mean. Any attempt to translate it literally fails. "I wonder (why?) what (what is expect here?) they (who?) serve at the officer´s mess (mess? Like untidiness? What sense does it make?)" Officer's mess refers to the hall where military officer eats, its known as a Mess Hall. So this is basically saying "I wonder what's for lunch.", but we want to avoid any (Prestige -) associated with using such unsophisticated language. So, "What they serve at the officer's mess instead"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2019 17:24:14 GMT -6
I´ve never figured out what that sentence mean. Any attempt to translate it literally fails. "I wonder (why?) what (what is expect here?) they (who?) serve at the officer´s mess (mess? Like untidiness? What sense does it make?)" Officer's mess refers to the hall where military officer eats, its known as a Mess Hall. So this is basically saying "I wonder what's for lunch.", but we want to avoid any (Prestige -) associated with using such unsophisticated language. So, "What they serve at the officer's mess instead" Oh, so thats it, thanks. If I designed that sentence, I would probably use something like "I have more important things to do now", or something like that. But at least we know what that answer will probably cause, so thats fine...
|
|