WoWs Interview

Posted on by

Source: http://world-of-ru.livejournal.com/3436747.html

Hello everyone,

Belarus portal tut.by published an interview with WoWs developer Ivan Moroz. From the interview:

- developers expect WoWs to be successful, ideally as much as WoT
- the idea of creating a naval game is very old, even older than the tanks game idea
- the developer, Lesta Studio was chosen because it’s from St.Petersburg (which is a city connected to navy) and because it was an experienced team, creating special effects for movies. They have also been working earlier with navy-themed objects.
- WG has numerous historical consultants for ships, they visited ships both in USA and Japan personally
- the earliest ship is from 1904, the latest from 50′s
- the game will come out with US and Japanese ships, later Germany, Britain, USSR and some other nations will be added
- it’s possible that submarines will appear in WoWs, but specific task (niche) has to be invented for them in the game
- to be successful, you have to maneuver constantly while trying to bring your turrets and torpedo tubes to bear
- closed beta is scheduled for winter 2015 (SS: here I think it is a typo, should be winter 2014)
- the minimal configuration will be Core 2 Duo processor or better, 2GB Ram, 8600GT or Intel HD4000 or Radeon HD2600 or better videocard

And a few screenies:

korabli_skrinshoty1

korabli_skrinshoty3

korabli_skrinshoty5

korabli_skrinshoty7

korabli_skrinshoty8

world_of_warships_razrab

64 thoughts on “WoWs Interview”

  1. I was reading an interview years back where they said they liked Navyfield so much and came up with the idea of making a tank game. I really hope it will be good. Can’t wait. For the meantime I played Navyfield 2 but the lack of players is bad and the game is dominated by subs.

    • I played NF2 for over 4 years. But subs that can take a whole battleship broadside and live is what killed it for me.

      But the things I like about it is that crews remember the ships they last used. Specifically, if crews are of a appropriate level, they can use the ship. Crews not remembering the tanks they used before is one of the things that annoys me in World of Tanks.

      Training for crew perks take exponentially more EXP than the last perk and WG won’t even entertain of paying Gold for crews to remember past tanks. Guess they want to milk players by getting them to train more crews and increase barrack space.

      • Can confirm. Submarines ruined NF. They were a terrible idea and they destroyed the game. When you have tier 1 submarine that can 1-salvo an endgame batleship but can park next to that endgame battleship and eat an entire salvo of 12 16″ shells and still be left standing, you have a SERIOUS game-breaking problem.

        And that was just the tier 1 submarines.

        Subs ruined the game. And it was a great game.

        I remember being in ONF when we wanted to balance submarines. Obst begged them to let us balance submarines. The reply? Submarines were none of our business.

        SDE knew they were broke as fuck and just didn’t care…

        Also, dat New Mexico..

        Hopefully the 14″ won’t suck. Right, Spec?

  2. - developers expect WoWs to be successful, ideally as much as WoT

    Better be….. Dont failed like WoWP. WoWP is simply NOT a competitor to War Thunder (Air forces only!). It better create some pressure to Gaijn on their ships.

    And BTW, I dont want a Battlestation series copy. I expect something new.

      • Hello! Just to clarify, Closed Alpha participants are allowed to state they are in Closed Alpha Testing of World of Warships. NDA prevents us from stating any information of the game there might be. My username is icoleman, feel free to
        Search me on the WoWS forum for proof of my Alpha participation.

      • No, the fact of paricipating itself is allowed to say.
        It’s quite logical because you can see if the user is alpha-tester or not – testers are marked as belonging to the groupt “alpha-tester” on the official forum :)

    • It’s really anoying to register to Alpha test. WG needs confirmation of personal information and many other things. I refused it.

    • It always makes me sad when people have the idea the Yamato was this invincible super weapon with no equal. Yes it had 18.1 inch main guns, but they had some serious issues in actual use due to their shallow firing angle making their shells more likely to hit a targets side armor instead of coming in at a steeper angle to try and pierce a target’s deck (where there was much less armor). The guns also had trouble with targets once they got within short range of the ship, as they couldn’t depress enough to fire at close targets.

      Yamato Armament:
      9 x 46.0 cm (18.1 in) guns (3×3)
      12 × 15.5 cm (6.1 in) guns (4×3)
      12 × 12.7 cm (5 in) guns (6×2)

      USS North Carolina Armament:(the most active Battleship in combat in WW2 with 15 Battle stars)
      9 × 16 in (410 mm)/45 calibre Mark 6 guns
      20 × 5 in (130 mm)/38 calibre dual-purpose guns

      Seems like the Yamato has quite an advantage right? WRONG. Why? The North Carolina got a radar guided firing control system in 1940 that allowed it to go as far as doing figure 8s while the gun control system took care of keeping the guns pointed on target. The Yamato had to rely on someone spotting for them to radio back firing corrections, then someone had to take those corrections and aim the guns while the ship remained on a straight course to fire. I think I’d place my money on the ship that could put shells on target much more quickly, accurately, and with the ability to evasively manuevre while doing so.

      So please don’t start crying about the poor Yamato being done in by Russian bias. The Yamato wasn’t even in the same class of capability as the Missouri class battleships in spite of what the History Channel claims.

      Hell, the Yamato’s sister ship, Musashi had to retreat from a fight against a tiny group of American destroyers and an escort carrier whose planes had only bullets and no bombs due to not being able to hit them. The Yamato is basically the naval version of the King Tiger (made to seem godlike for dramatic effects in war movies and documentaries but not very useful in actual practice due to design issues).

      • Any of the Iowas would have had a field day with the Yamato had they ever gotten the chance. It would’ve been a curb-stomping, as Iowa maneuvered while maintaining a targeting solution on Yamato and Yamato just kind of wallowed around helplessly, unable to catch Iowa, unable to accurately hit Iowa, unable to protect itself from glorious 2,700lb Superheavy AP.

      • Well Musashi was actually sunk before the battle against the DDs and CVLs took place.

        Yamato is fully capable of dealing with an Iowa class battleship, 1 on 1.

      • You are total retard, I never said Yamato was better than US battleships, I never complained about Yamato asswell, only thing I said that WG will make soviet navy biased because “balance reasons” adding never existing ships etc.

    • Well, if you wouldn’t had been rolled over so early in the war you would be more important to be included.

      (Basically there’s not really enough (not even as paperships) to make full tiers very easily. Adding the two nations with the most important history of naval battles first makes a lot of sense. But then again, arguing against nationalism never works so, eh.)

      • Totally agree with you.
        USA and IJN would be the only nations which are capable of having full historical DD/BB/CV/CA/CL trees. Followed by the RN, KM perhaps Italian and French could get at least one tree of BBs. The Russians had nothing at all except 3 lease BBs a few Kirov cruisers and a few DDs.

      • ‘Adding the two nations with the most important history of naval battles first makes a lot of sense. But then again, arguing against nationalism never works so, eh.)’

        really? most important history of naval battles?
        traflagar
        spanish armada
        battle of jutland
        battle of the atlantic
        battle of the river plate

        to name only a handful of the battles that the most important navy in history fought

        • Only three of them were in XX century, only two during WWII and both are senseless examples. Battle of the River Plate was just one small episode, meaningless from WWII point of view. Battle of Atlantic was not even single battle and is out of WoWs range because there are no submarines implemented.

          • You forget that the game starts with Dreadnought.
            Which means the Battle of Jutland, and all the other surface combat in WWI is very relevant.

            And the Battle of the River Plate is relevant, because it saw the destruction (indirectly) of a commerce raider, allowing the Royal Navy to focus more on the submersible threat.

        • Forgive Wargaming for adding the two largest and most significant navies in WWII first..

          • The problem isn’t, that the Japs and the Yanks are getting in first. It’s that France isn’t even mentioned as a future prospect, while Russia will, of course, be in, even though they had absolutely nothing pyhsical beyond cruiser-sizes, except for some highly outdated Pre World War I battleships. The Soviet Navy during that period basically only consisted of submarines and torpedo boats, while France had everything to field, including the fastest destroyers, ships that rivaled the german pocket battleships in performance and, of course, the Richelieu battleships, one of the best battleship classes within the limits of the treaties at the time.

    • Since BBs and CAs will be limited per match (2 BB and 1 CA was said numerous times, subject to change, etc. etc.) I wonder how long the queues will be or how much of a credits sinks they have to make those.

      For me it will be cruisers all the way, hunting those pesky destroyers sounds like the same fun as hunting ELCs. :D

  8. SS :closed beta is scheduled for winter 2015 (SS: here I think it is a typo, should be winter 2014

    next winter is from 22.12.2014 until 19.03.2015 – so winter 2015 can be wright

  10. - developers expect WoWs to be successful, ideally as much as WoT

    LOL right! that’s what they’ve said about WoWP. Waste of your money WG, waste of your money.

  11. Could you people stop with all that l33t talk and enlighten us, mortals, what the hell are BBs, CLs, CVs, DDs and whatever?!

  12. If this game is as good as i am hoping it will be, i will happily say goodby to 20k odd tank battles and invest my time and cash in it.

  14. Officially at least in my Scandinavian country it is winter in december, January and February. So we could expect this in January or February 2015 hehe Unless you are right…

  15. Better crank the development fast and good WG, once WT release their game again first before you do, you guys are automatically done for on the ships.

    Oh and do it while those weeaboo KanColle players are still on hype, can milk some $$ from those fellas too.

  18. > closed beta is scheduled for winter 2015 (SS: here I think it is a typo, should be winter 2014)
    Or could be january/february of 2015.

  20. - it’s possible that submarines will appear in WoWs, but specific task (niche) has to be invented for them in the game

    I’ve been banging on about this since before Alpha (and still didn’t get the post-count to get accepted into it … how absurd).

    Subs will be the TD’s of shipping .. they’ll be slow on the surface, even slower underwater, and completely exposed to hedgehog depth charges and sonar. Sonar will basically work like a 10 second consumable with a 45 second cooldown to keep it from being ridiculously OP tracking down underwater targets.

    • The difference between subs and TDs, though, is that anything on the map can actually hit a TD when it’s spotted.

      Unless the ship has depthcharges or hedgehogs it has no offensive capabilities against the submarine.

      Unless they let scout planes carry depth charges.

      Submarines as part of fleet actions are incredibly vulnerable, though. Easily spotted from the air and easily dealt with. To make them viable, they’d have to buff them to ridiculously unrealistic degrees. Like NavyFIELD did. And then they’re not submarines anymore. They’re Klingon Birds of Prey..

  21. just got back from Gamescom, where my main goal was to give WoWS a try. They stressed that it was closed alpha, very rough, going to change totally before launch – but I enjoyed it nevertheless.

    pros:
    ships look fantastic
    moving and shooting makes intuitive sense
    evasive manoevers mean you can dodge some fire

    cons:
    you’re shooting at pixels on the horizon
    no damage numbers meant i didn’t even know if i hit (this is likely a feature of the GC build; i had no time to tinker with settings)
    i’ve no idea what planes do (again, no time to explore)
    you really are shooting at pixels: by the time they’re recognisably ships, you’re eating broadsides.

    still: i’ll be playing it as soon as i can. if they can solve the shooting-at-pixels thing, it’ll be much bigger than WoWP.

  22. - it’s possible that submarines will appear in WoWs, but specific task (niche) has to be invented for them in the game

    *does happy dance*

  23. So they think there might be a possibility for subs? Doesn’t that pretty much invalidate every statement made by the dev blogs to date?

    I can understand why they aren’t going to have them on release as it would be much simpler to get the project off the ground and bringing in funds where similar types of ships, e.g BC/BB duke it out instead of having to make new subs model with sub-surface sneaky mechanics and such, so I wouldn’t rule them out later.

    Thing is, they do kinda have a point about not including them at all. A submerged sub would be in the same port of call as light tanks, artillery and some paper WTDs. Once spotted, boom. Also they’d be slow as all hell.

    Still, I guess I’d vote for their inclusion just so I have a reason to mount depth charges and hedgehogs to my ships.