tm63au Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 Once again WG has seen fit butcher historical design GONE !!! GONE !!! GONE !!! GONE !!! GONE !!! Gone !!! And are but just a few to mention And this is how they look now, I don't give a flying F about fake ships and there magical weaponry nor do I have a issue with actual ships that carried airborne anti Sub ordinance but German and Italian ships to the best of my knowledge never had such doctrine, this is absolutely ridiculous for these lines just as half the British cruisers also half this format in game. There is no historical precedence for this change. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWastee Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 like everything in those screenshots is kinda disturbing to me, EXCEPT for those AA mounts lol 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ensign Cthulhu Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 32 minutes ago, tm63au said: Once again WG has seen fit butcher historical design Would you like to be a little more specific? Like, several thousand percent more? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoW_ Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 (edited) What is gone? PS - the title should have “they’re” not “there” Edited February 7 by DoW_ Clarification 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevermore135 Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 (edited) 16 minutes ago, DoW_ said: What is gone? PS - the title should have “they’re” not “there” I’m assuming WG removed the modeled depth charge racks/launch systems, as these ships now have ASW airstrikes. Edited February 7 by Nevermore135 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral_Karasu Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 10 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said: I’m assuming WG removed the modeled depth charge racks/launch systems, as these ships now have ASW airstrikes. I see... WG logic. I don't like these gimmicky ASW airstrikes, nor do I see any sensible reason for removing the historically correct systems the ship actually had in the real world. 1 hour ago, tm63au said: There is no historical precedence for this change. Yes, there is. In the sense they've butchered historical designs before. @DoW_ Thanks. (It was me.) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevermore135 Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 Just now, Admiral_Karasu said: I see... WG logic. I don't like these gimmicky ASW airstrikes, nor do I see any sensible reason for removing the historically correct systems the ship actually had in the real world. IMO, every cruiser should have some form of ASW airstrike (range and other parameters can be altered for balance). It is a bit silly that the models were changed, but I suppose it represents consistent thinking with the original justification for some ships not having any ASW (that nothing was modeled). 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral_Karasu Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 2 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said: IMO, every cruiser should have some form of ASW airstrike (range and other parameters can be altered for balance). It is a bit silly that the models were changed, but I suppose it represents consistent thinking with the original justification for some ships not having any ASW (that nothing was modeled). Well, yes for gameplay purposes the ASW airstrike is way superior to the depth charges, which by itself is somewhat ridiculous in my opinion, and maybe we should not try to mention WG and logic in the same sentence... 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakob Knight Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 (edited) Historically? Historically, ships have lost systems during refits and those systems mounts were not kept as empty shells and wasted tonnage. Please see the U.S.S. Galveston (CL-93/CLG-3) as an example. So, yes. Ships do change in appearance and systems over the time they are in service. This does not make them any less historic. Note the Hipper has had a longer service history in the game than the actual ship, along with more examples of the ship in existence, so where do you begin to determine what's historical now? Edited February 7 by Jakob Knight 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral_Karasu Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 15 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said: Historically? Historically, ships have lost systems during refits and those systems mounts were not kept as empty shells and wasted tonnage. Please see the U.S.S. Galveston (CL-93/CLG-3) as an example. So, yes. Ships do change in appearance and systems over the time they are in service. This does not make them any less historic. Note the Hipper has had a longer service history in the game than the actual ship, along with more examples of the ship in existence, so where do you begin to determine what's historical now? Uhm... for real ships this is easy, it's any of their historical refits over their service careers. For paper ships, it is fairly irrelevant. Bayern, for instance, is a real ship. That didn't stop WG from butchering it by removing the historical hull and making the only available option the complete fantasy refit. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asym Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 30 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said: Historically? Historically, ships have lost systems during refits and those systems mounts were not kept as empty shells and wasted tonnage. Please see the U.S.S. Galveston (CL-93/CLG-3) as an example. So, yes. Ships do change in appearance and systems over the time they are in service. This does not make them any less historic. Note the Hipper has had a longer service history in the game than the actual ship, along with more examples of the ship in existence, so where do you begin to determine what's historical now? You are correct. But, I think we are discussing "art"...........nuance.......respect for what was......deference to Historical accuracy........et al. There isn't a "correct answer" in other words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakob Knight Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 18 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said: Uhm... for real ships this is easy, it's any of their historical refits over their service careers. For paper ships, it is fairly irrelevant. Bayern, for instance, is a real ship. That didn't stop WG from butchering it by removing the historical hull and making the only available option the complete fantasy refit. But their service careers in the game do not match their service careers in real life. What service refit did the KMS Hipper receive in November 1946? Should we reflect the state of her at that time to all Hippers in the game? Or do we acknowledge that the history of the ships we sail now diverged from their real life counterparts the moment they entered the game, and the historical configuration of these ships will be different because the history of these ships in the game world is different? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral_Karasu Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 4 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said: But their service careers in the game do not match their service careers in real life. What service refit did the KMS Hipper receive in November 1946? Should we reflect the state of her at that time to all Hippers in the game? Or do we acknowledge that the history of the ships we sail now diverged from their real life counterparts the moment they entered the game, and the historical configuration of these ships will be different because the history of these ships in the game world is different? No matter how many years or how many battles Hipper or any other ship has in WoWS, it does not change the relevancy of the real, historical Hipper, it won't turn the real ship that existed into a footnote on WoWS Wiki page. It's only historical, if it matches what the ship was like during her actual service career. There can and should not be any 'post 1946' refits for Hipper. Within the limits set by the historical service of any ship, I don't mind if WG makes changes to reflect the historical refits. In fact, I would like them to implement this idea, but only if they did it properly. What I mean by that is that WG should give us control over the refits, and the ways how the refits would change the ship characteristics (stats, in game terms), would be reflected in the tier etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakob Knight Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 7 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said: No matter how many years or how many battles Hipper or any other ship has in WoWS, it does not change the relevancy of the real, historical Hipper, it won't turn the real ship that existed into a footnote on WoWS Wiki page. It's only historical, if it matches what the ship was like during her actual service career. There can and should not be any 'post 1946' refits for Hipper. Within the limits set by the historical service of any ship, I don't mind if WG makes changes to reflect the historical refits. In fact, I would like them to implement this idea, but only if they did it properly. What I mean by that is that WG should give us control over the refits, and the ways how the refits would change the ship characteristics (stats, in game terms), would be reflected in the tier etc. Well then by all means insist to WG that all ships that just had their historical depth charges replaced by Air Strike Depth Charges have the changes revoked. I'm personally okay with it either way. However, the fact is that the ships we play in the game are not the historical ships they depict, and the progression of what those ships would have evolved into is as much historical as it is hypothetical in regards to them. The conditions and world the Hipper exists in and operates within in WOWS does not match the conditions and world which shaped what those ships were adapted and engineered for throughout their careers in the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Type_93 Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 You’re playing the wrong game if you’re wanting “Historically correct” modeling on the ships. Most ships had so much Jerry rigging on them done by the crews that nothing would be 100% accurate. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 (edited) If a ship had (insert equipment here), then it should be present when we look at the ship in-game. If the hull changed over time, then that would be represented by the "A" hull and the "B" hull as we research the ship, right? And in some cases we have the <insert ship name here> appearing different because the year of representation changed and the year of the change was incorporated into the new ship's name (Scharnhorst '43, or West Virginia '44, for example). So if turrents or AA mounts are missing from the decks, then are they being removed because it's easier on the programming to have fewer animated items? Or is something else going on in the pictures that I'm not understanding? Edited February 7 by Wolfswetpaws 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral_Karasu Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 The ASW airstrikes have zero relevance in terms of the ship model we see in the game. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevermore135 Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said: Or is something else going on in the pictures that I'm not understanding? WG apparently removed the depth charges and their associated equipment from the models of these ships that just received ASW airstrikes in this patch. It’s a bit of a pointless change (these were static assets anyways). Edited February 7 by Nevermore135 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral_Karasu Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 17 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said: WG apparently removed the depth charges and their associated equipment from the models of these ships that just received ASW airstrikes in this patch. It’s a bit of a pointless change (these were static assets anyways). If you want to express it in such a generous way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WES_HoundDog Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 not sure why they had to remove the visuals. It is my opinion from the posts on these boards is that ship dropped depth charges may actually be harmful to have. Why didn't they just leave them on the ships as another form of asw. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chysagon Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 Interesting thread-real ships were constantly modified during construction,even before launch and over the course of usage end results differed to the original launched design as already stated. On the other hand think of the ships in wows as plastic model kits,most look about right sometiimes but are not always perfect. As a lot of ships are either paper ships anyway does it really matter that much on the finished artwork,as in the end its just artistic asthetics. The odd thing is they have enough time to change the models bit not fix any issues within the game,bug fixes etc. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevermore135 Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 21 minutes ago, Chysagon said: The odd thing is they have enough time to change the models bit not fix any issues within the game,bug fixes etc. The modeling team wouldn’t be involved with those specific efforts. I agree that it does seem like an odd use of resources, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ensign Cthulhu Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 1 hour ago, Chysagon said: On the other hand think of the ships in wows as plastic model kits,most look about right sometiimes but are not always perfect. When I was a kid, my dad gave me (and mostly built for me - I think it was really his toy) a plastic model HMS Hood. It had weird quad gun turrets which in retrospect I'm guessing were supposed to represent quad pompoms. I never did find an IRL refit schedule which exactly corresponded to the layout of that model. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MBT808 Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 6 hours ago, tm63au said: fake ships and there magical weaponry Ships are fake, the guns and turrets are real designs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tm63au Posted February 7 Author Share Posted February 7 7 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said: Would you like to be a little more specific? Like, several thousand percent more? Shipboard Anti Submarine weapons 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now