Comments on: WoWs Interview

By: IOSYS

IOSYS — Sun, 17 Aug 2014 14:31:24 +0000

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.

By: filipsss

filipsss — Sat, 16 Aug 2014 14:09:30 +0000

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.

By: Madner Kami

Madner Kami — Sat, 16 Aug 2014 11:40:28 +0000

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will, of course, be in, even though they had absolutely nothing pyhsical beyond cruiser-sizes, except for some highly outdated Pre World War I battleships.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.

By: Ariwch

Ariwch — Sat, 16 Aug 2014 09:22:10 +0000

It might be on of brother Yudintsev, leaders of WT…. :D

By: Ariwch

Ariwch — Sat, 16 Aug 2014 09:11:23 +0000

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 :)

By: mr3awsome

mr3awsome — Sat, 16 Aug 2014 08:50:02 +0000

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.

By: mr3awsome

mr3awsome — Sat, 16 Aug 2014 08:46:48 +0000

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.

By: Kinderschlager

Kinderschlager — Sat, 16 Aug 2014 06:01:47 +0000

- 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*

By: seanas

seanas — Fri, 15 Aug 2014 23:16:48 +0000

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.

By: ramp4ge

ramp4ge — Fri, 15 Aug 2014 22:18:16 +0000

You shut your dirty whore mouth.