What's the point of having ships other than battleships?

[M1A2C Abrams]

Really bizarre to have these different classes of ships when they just get stronger as they get bigger. A cruiser is always going to destroy a destroyer and a battleship is always going to destroy a cruiser. The aircraft carrier would have a chance if the maps weren't congested 20km square grids that any battleship can fire from one end to the other but since they are the Carrier is nerfed to uselessness.

[Jackson]

Well I guess the most obvious of all of them are destroyers. 1 BB vs 1 DD the BB has almost no chance at all. The game is built around a triangle of power. Battleships counter cruisers, cruisers counter destroyers and destroyers counter battleships. Carriers are just there. They help spot for the team and do damage to most targets, tho the larger targets like battleships are much easier to hit.

[M1A2C Abrams]

Originally posted by Jack:

Well I guess the most obvious of all of them are destroyers. 1 BB vs 1 DD the BB has almost no chance at all. The game is built around a triangle of power. Battleships counter cruisers, cruisers counter destroyers and destroyers counter battleships. Carriers are just there. They help spot for the team and do damage to most targets, tho the larger targets like battleships are much easier to hit.

A destroyer is there to screen out submarines, if it saw a battleship it would run away because it had no chance. Except for the suicide charge during the battle of Samar where their choice was to attack or to let a bunch of troops they were supposed to protect die. Even with all their air power they still got mauled.

[Snake]

Money. Don't you get it. Money. Control.

[ReDiR]

Originally posted by Snake:

Money. Don't you get it. Money. Control.

Not banned yet for your nonsence?

[HunterKiller]

Originally posted by ReDiR:

Originally posted by Snake:

Money. Don't you get it. Money. Control.

Not banned yet for your nonsence?

Not banned yet, for your spelling?

[Nepgear]

Originally posted by M1A2C Abrams:

A cruiser is always going to destroy a destroyer

Kléber, Ragnar, Elbing, etc. disagree.

[Leadmagnet]

Originally posted by M1A2C Abrams:

A cruiser is always going to destroy a destroyer and a battleship is always going to destroy a cruiser.

Depends on who the destroyer or cruiser jockey is and if there is actually team work going on.

[M1A2C Abrams]

Originally posted by Leadmagnet:

Originally posted by M1A2C Abrams:

A cruiser is always going to destroy a destroyer and a battleship is always going to destroy a cruiser.

Depends on who the destroyer or cruiser jockey is and if there is actually team work going on.

Originally posted by Nepgear:

Originally posted by M1A2C Abrams:

A cruiser is always going to destroy a destroyer

Kléber, Ragnar, Elbing, etc. disagree.

The closest thing I have seen to a ship punching above its weight class was when the Hiei was sunk. But she was a old and outdated battlecruiser up against a group of modern American cruisers.

[Sekhriat]

Originally posted by M1A2C Abrams:

Originally posted by Leadmagnet:

Depends on who the destroyer or cruiser jockey is and if there is actually team work going on.

Originally posted by Nepgear:

Kléber, Ragnar, Elbing, etc. disagree.

The closest thing I have seen to a ship punching above its weight class was when the Hiei was sunk. But she was a old and outdated battlecruiser up against a group of modern American cruisers.

You're mixing real-life with a game that's mostly arcade in nature. Nothing here is going to make sense if you compare it to irl battles all the time.

[M1A2C Abrams]

Originally posted by Sekhriat:

Originally posted by M1A2C Abrams:

The closest thing I have seen to a ship punching above its weight class was when the Hiei was sunk. But she was a old and outdated battlecruiser up against a group of modern American cruisers.

You're mixing real-life with a game that's mostly arcade in nature. Nothing here is going to make sense if you compare it to irl battles all the time.

Okay but if you play a game that is based on a real life topic you would expect some sort of realism from it.
You wouldn't expect a Mercedes AMG One in Forza to get defeated by a Volkswagen Bug in a race. In the same way you wouldn't see a destroyer destroying a battleship.

[Jackson]

Originally posted by M1A2C Abrams:

Originally posted by Sekhriat:

You're mixing real-life with a game that's mostly arcade in nature. Nothing here is going to make sense if you compare it to irl battles all the time.

Okay but if you play a game that is based on a real life topic you would expect some sort of realism from it.

Like I wouldn't expect a sniper rifle in Call of Duty to fire a spread of shotgun pellets, you expect it to fire one high powered bullet. You also wouldn't expect a Mercedes AMG One in Forza to get defeated by a Volkswagen Bug in a race.

Well, in this game the VW would win if the driver were better ;)

[M1A2C Abrams]

Originally posted by Jack:

Originally posted by M1A2C Abrams:

Okay but if you play a game that is based on a real life topic you would expect some sort of realism from it.

Like I wouldn't expect a sniper rifle in Call of Duty to fire a spread of shotgun pellets, you expect it to fire one high powered bullet. You also wouldn't expect a Mercedes AMG One in Forza to get defeated by a Volkswagen Bug in a race.

Well, in this game the VW would win if the driver were better ;)

Okay well think of it this way.

Imagine the destroyer is a guy with an M16 and the Battleship is a M1A2C Abrams tank. Having a destroyer defeat a battleship would be like establishing a meta where the M16 is a hard counter to the M1A2C Abrams despite the fact that the M1A2C Abrams would be functionally invulnerable to such a weapon because that's not what it's designed for.

[Jackson]

Originally posted by M1A2C Abrams:

Originally posted by Jack:

Well, in this game the VW would win if the driver were better ;)

Okay well think of it this way.

Imagine the destroyer is a guy with an M16 and the Battleship is a M1A2C Abrams tank. Having a destroyer defeat a battleship would be like establishing a meta where the M16 is a hard counter to the M1A2C Abrams despite the fact that the M1A2C Abrams would be functionally invulnerable to such a weapon because that's not what it's designed for.

Also note that tanks sent into combat without infantry almost always lose to infantry tho it won't be those M16's doing the killing.

Either way, you can't equate anything here to the difference between an M16 and a Rheinmetall Rh-120 gun. You would more compare a small tank to a large one.

[M1A2C Abrams]

Originally posted by Jack:

Originally posted by M1A2C Abrams:

Okay well think of it this way.

Imagine the destroyer is a guy with an M16 and the Battleship is a M1A2C Abrams tank. Having a destroyer defeat a battleship would be like establishing a meta where the M16 is a hard counter to the M1A2C Abrams despite the fact that the M1A2C Abrams would be functionally invulnerable to such a weapon because that's not what it's designed for.

Also note that tanks sent into combat without infantry almost always lose to infantry tho it won't be those M16's doing the killing.

Either way, you can't equate anything here to the difference between an M16 and a Rheinmetall Rh-120 gun. You would more compare a small tank to a large one.

If we compare two tanks then it would be something like a Shilka to a M1A2C Abrams. The Shilka is weak and vulnerable to the M1A2C while the M1A2C is strong and immune to the Shilka's 23mm gun. The reason being is that the Shilka is build to counter a very specific threat and isn't intended to fight the M1A2C because that would be crazy.

[christof]

Jack's still got a point in this slightly abstract analogue though. The BB in WoWs might be the tank and the DD infantry. But he's infantry with portable anti-tank weaponry. And that's a fight that the infantry will usually win.

But even more so:

Originally posted by M1A2C Abrams:

Okay but if you play a game that is based on a real life topic you would expect some sort of realism from it.

Some sort, maybe. But that's a rather flexible term. And let's be honest here: Most games that fall into that category are rather flexible when it comes to adjusting things for game balance as well. Last I checked, no one has rightfully accused things like Call of Duty or Ghost Recon to be accurate military simulators, for example.