Jump to content


World War Simulator 5000

World War Simulator 5000 combination of WG games wowp wows wot world of warplanes world of warships world of tanks warthunder wt

  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

AbsoluuttinenPossu #1 Posted 12 August 2017 - 02:22 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 7995 battles
  • 5
  • [KOFH] KOFH
  • Member since:
    08-07-2015

Dear Wargaming, you have said that WoWs, WoWp and WoT together creates the universe of war-games. Why not to do it then? To combine them. To make uhh... To make World War Simulator 5000?

So, I decided to make a post just for posting fantasies about that kind of combination of these completely broken and unbalanced games. Go on, tell us your ideas :popcorn:

 

 

The rest of this section is filled with my ideas. Beware it's longer than the Tog.

 

Balancing

 

To balance the game will be hard if the combination would be made. Like the warships versus tanks, horrible mess. One skyrocket from the close range and all tanks DEAD. Firing warship from distance is highly inaccurate in the WoWs and in real life too. We can avoid this kind of situation by forcing the captains to not go too close to the land where the tanks are rolling by with mines for instance or making good spots to hide and a way out of them into deeper of the continent or island.

I have no idea that how aircraft carriers should work, so I assume that you will figure out something.

 

Planes firing upon tanks isn't very effective unless the tank has no roof. Bombs are way too overpowered against tanks so adding secondary firing system is required to defend effectively against airstrikes. "Secondaries"

Such tanks like Pz. Sfl. IVc which are already Anti-Aircraft guns doesn't require this option.

However, the bombing system has to be nerfed anyway because it's still too OP. 

In many planes the amount of bombs is very poor, so cool-down system would be neat for the pilots.

 

When there is a lot of types of killing machines in one match, so there are many players and big objectives.

Respawning is important, without it the game will be extremely boring. Just imagine, launch, die before you an get even started, back to hangar/garage/harbor.

We should imitate Warthunder in respawning.

 

To avoid eternal hell caused by matchmaking, just simply stick it to one battletier alone and make it separate players regarding their personal records. Not anything like nowadays existing ranked battles in WoT.

Co-op battles like in WoWs is an amazing thing to have, take that in!

 

Earning credits and experience is just like torturing. Receiving resources must be increased significantly, especially when you have to repair your tanks, warships and planes, including buying consumables and ammunition after use. 

 

Design

 

The maps must be extremely big and they require islands or wide rivers.

Even some bases would be scattered around the maps where repairing your tank or plane would be possible. Destroying them would be an alternative objective to secure victory.

Not anything hitpoint crapbut actual buildings, stationary vehicles, NPC anti-air and -tank guns etc. what you can shoot, bombard, ram and drive over.

 

Nature-physics, reflections and graphics like this I except.

 

That's all for now, I read your comments with pleasure ;)

Make this post popular so Wargaming could actually make this kind of combined game!

Have a nice day!



Dava_117 #2 Posted 12 August 2017 - 02:28 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 12997 battles
  • 152
  • [B-BAS] B-BAS
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

It would be fun also to add infantry.Different classes like Sniper, AT, Marines ecc. with different equipment to support tanks and may be use AA gun.

That would be fantastic!:great:

But it would be a 60GB game! So really difficoult to implement...



Aikl #3 Posted 12 August 2017 - 02:28 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 21002 battles
  • 1,459
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

Christ, no.

 

If the realistic combined-arms approach was superior, everybody would be playing War Thunder. We're not - it has some appeal, but in the end fails at what WoT (and WoWp/WOWs) aims to be - a quick, easily accessed arcade game.

 

Besides, the games have separate game engines, and the WoT engine in particular wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell coping with grand-scale battles. I see no reason for WG to even touch on this subject - there's already a game that does this, and does it arguably rather well. And yes, there is very likely a reason why War Thunder doesn't allow proper combined arms arcade battles. :rolleyes:



Dava_117 #4 Posted 12 August 2017 - 02:38 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 12997 battles
  • 152
  • [B-BAS] B-BAS
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View PostAikl, on 12 August 2017 - 02:28 PM, said:

Christ, no.

 

If the realistic combined-arms approach was superior, everybody would be playing War Thunder. We're not - it has some appeal, but in the end fails at what WoT (and WoWp/WOWs) aims to be - a quick, easily accessed arcade game.

 

Besides, the games have separate game engines, and the WoT engine in particular wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell coping with grand-scale battles. I see no reason for WG to even touch on this subject - there's already a game that does this, and does it arguably rather well. And yes, there is very likely a reason why War Thunder doesn't allow proper combined arms arcade battles. :rolleyes:

 

well, that wouldn't necessary be the same game. You could still play WoT knowing that, with your WG account and your tanks, you can log in in "World of War" and use them in a more realistic environment...

Some time I would really enjoy a more complete game. :)



Browarszky #5 Posted 12 August 2017 - 03:01 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 12458 battles
  • 1,307
  • [I-S-L] I-S-L
  • Member since:
    12-03-2013

View PostDava_117, on 12 August 2017 - 01:38 PM, said:

 

well, that wouldn't necessary be the same game. You could still play WoT knowing that, with your WG account and your tanks, you can log in in "World of War" and use them in a more realistic environment...

Some time I would really enjoy a more complete game. :)

 

Yes, a new approach would be a refreshing change, I think.

WindSplitter1 #6 Posted 12 August 2017 - 09:03 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 8188 battles
  • 1,186
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

I would fully support this indeed. It's a very good idea.

 

But then... we have people already moaning about game balance here all the time. The biggest wall against such game would be the community itself.

 

And those of you saying, War Thunder: one shot kills everything. Even in Il-2, one-shots are ultra rare.



Jigabachi #7 Posted 13 August 2017 - 12:49 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17109 battles
  • 14,779
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostWindSplitter1, on 12 August 2017 - 09:03 PM, said:

I would fully support this indeed. It's a very good idea.

Last time I checked, a "good idea" was an idea that would work. 

An idea that already fails before the drawing board is called a bad idea.



Aikl #8 Posted 13 August 2017 - 12:58 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 21002 battles
  • 1,459
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostWindSplitter1, on 12 August 2017 - 08:03 PM, said:

Spoiler

 

 

Sure, because the community would be too small. WT doesn't exactly have a ton of players. I can get a game in WoT any time of the day or night, WT is rather restricted.

 

IL-2 being prone to oneshots? Unless the WT damage model is bugged (which isn't unlikely), that thing should be pretty flyable as long as the pilot is alive. It was known as the flying tank to the Germans. Alternatively, the Finns called it 'the crop duster' due to the attack patterns. Stalin probably describes it best: As important to the Red Army as air and bread.

 

View PostJigabachi, on 12 August 2017 - 11:49 PM, said:

Last time I checked, a "good idea" was an idea that would work. 

An idea that already fails before the drawing board is called a bad idea.

 

Alas, it's hard to understand that WT only enjoys limited success with this very recipe. Genres aside, I think WT is better than WoT in many areas - but not in how fast I can have some fun. I feel like that's missing from many newer computer games too, which is why I hardly play other games.



WindSplitter1 #9 Posted 13 August 2017 - 04:16 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 8188 battles
  • 1,186
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

View PostAikl, on 12 August 2017 - 11:58 PM, said:

 

IL-2 being prone to oneshots? Unless the WT damage model is bugged (which isn't unlikely), that thing should be pretty flyable as long as the pilot is alive. It was known as the flying tank to the Germans. Alternatively, the Finns called it 'the crop duster' due to the attack patterns. Stalin probably describes it best: As important to the Red Army as air and bread.

 

By Il-2, I was referring to this:



Browarszky #10 Posted 13 August 2017 - 04:48 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 12458 battles
  • 1,307
  • [I-S-L] I-S-L
  • Member since:
    12-03-2013

View PostWindSplitter1, on 13 August 2017 - 03:16 PM, said:

 

By Il-2, I was referring to this:

 

That's some new version with '1946'?

WindSplitter1 #11 Posted 13 August 2017 - 04:52 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 8188 battles
  • 1,186
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

View PostBrowarszky, on 13 August 2017 - 03:48 PM, said:

 

That's some new version with '1946'?

 

How can no one here know Il-2 Sturmovik 1946? THE best Combat Flight Simulator?

Browarszky #12 Posted 13 August 2017 - 06:06 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 12458 battles
  • 1,307
  • [I-S-L] I-S-L
  • Member since:
    12-03-2013

View PostWindSplitter1, on 13 August 2017 - 03:52 PM, said:

 

How can no one here know Il-2 Sturmovik 1946? THE best Combat Flight Simulator?

 

Sorry, man...:hiding:

Dennyb #13 Posted 13 August 2017 - 06:15 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 21178 battles
  • 1,887
  • Member since:
    12-14-2012
They can't even balance tanks on tanks without [edited]everything up. Imagine if they tried adding other things?

HaZardeur #14 Posted 13 August 2017 - 06:26 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 31005 battles
  • 756
  • Member since:
    08-14-2010
Dear OP, you should know that WoWP is utter rubbish and you are lucky if you not fight against "WG filler bots" every match. If you wanna fly -> WarThunder, because that is what this game is doing really good.

AbsoluuttinenPossu #15 Posted 13 August 2017 - 07:56 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 7995 battles
  • 5
  • [KOFH] KOFH
  • Member since:
    08-07-2015

View PostHaZardeur, on 13 August 2017 - 06:26 PM, said:

Dear OP, you should know that WoWP is utter rubbish and you are lucky if you not fight against "WG filler bots" every match. If you wanna fly -> WarThunder, because that is what this game is doing really good.

 

I perfectly know that WoWP is rubbish my friend. And I've tested WT at flying, amazing.

 

View PostAikl, on 12 August 2017 - 02:28 PM, said:

Christ, no.

 

If the realistic combined-arms approach was superior, everybody would be playing War Thunder. We're not - it has some appeal, but in the end fails at what WoT (and WoWp/WOWs) aims to be - a quick, easily accessed arcade game.

 

Besides, the games have separate game engines, and the WoT engine in particular wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell coping with grand-scale battles. I see no reason for WG to even touch on this subject - there's already a game that does this, and does it arguably rather well. And yes, there is very likely a reason why War Thunder doesn't allow proper combined arms arcade battles. :rolleyes:

 

Of course if we combine these games instantly without any changes, result is a horrible mess.

And hey, don't trample other peoples ideas instantly, this topic is just for fantasizing. :bajan:


Edited by AbsoluuttinenPossu, 13 August 2017 - 07:56 PM.


Ceeb #16 Posted 14 August 2017 - 07:36 AM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 24555 battles
  • 4,231
  • [BULL] BULL
  • Member since:
    01-14-2011

View PostWindSplitter1, on 13 August 2017 - 03:52 PM, said:

 

How can no one here know Il-2 Sturmovik 1946? THE best Combat Flight Simulator?

 

Falcon 4 says Hi,  advanced avionics, brutal flight models, every switch in the cockpit works,  SEAD, SEAD Escort,  CAS, Strike, Recon. and a whole lot more I cant remember. 

 

Eats Il-2 for breakfast, spits it out and eats it again.



JCTagger #17 Posted 14 August 2017 - 08:54 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 10619 battles
  • 772
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    08-24-2014

Dunno from Naval bombardment or airstrikes (tried that a couple of Christmases back, didn't they? Couldn't get the hang of it all..), BUT...

 

How about a consumable that lets you put a squad of Infantry with Panzerfaust/ Bazooka/ PIAT in tall buildings?

 

Just to reinforce why tanks don't go into towns if they can help it - at least when unsupported by friendly troops, before the shouts of "Stalingrad" and "Berlin!"

Would put a whole new slant on Himmelsderp, and the Eastern side of Siegfried line. Oh, and Kharkov, for that matter...



Aikl #18 Posted 14 August 2017 - 10:10 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 21002 battles
  • 1,459
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostJCTagger, on 14 August 2017 - 07:54 AM, said:

(...
How about a consumable that lets you put a squad of Infantry with Panzerfaust/ Bazooka/ PIAT in tall buildings?

(...)

 

Kind of like WoWs carrier interface? Wouldn't be a bad idea for a 'total war' mode, and likely a fair implentation of infantry. On that note, I'm not entirely sure whether War Thunder decided against big ships due to physics or due to gameplay reasons. The latter wouldn't surprise me. Using battleships for a separate game mode could work, kind of like Battlefield 2142's Titan mode.

 

View PostWindSplitter1, on 13 August 2017 - 03:16 PM, said:

 

By Il-2, I was referring to this:

 

 

Ah, of course. Played the base game a lot back in the day, fun stuff. Such a nice community as well.

 

In IL-2 I got to know a nice chap by the name of Marco. Interesting guy, really living into the role of a Luftwaffe combat fighter, screaming German phrases over the radio. Didn't like Ivan too much. Didn't like jews either, actually. Turns out, Marco was an actual white supremacist. Marco was also a Pardo Brazilian, i.e. he was only part white.

 

Turns out that, like Dave Chapelle has showed, being a non-white white supremacist is somewhat problematic. He did try to do the obvious, however, killing himself. Yes, suicide attempts can be funny, kids.

Marco enjoyed several months of chatting and building an online friendship with me roleplaying as a fellow white supremacist. Tales were told of our racially pure society and our proud Aryan heritage. Not a particularly bright guy, but it's funny how much crap you can feed someone who lives on the opposite side of the globe and believes Wikipedia is leftist propaganda.

 It would've been rude not to feed his delusions ...and his apparent idea of starting the extermination of all non-aryans with himself. :D

 


Edited by Aikl, 14 August 2017 - 10:11 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users