Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'battleships'.
Found 1 result
Knights of the Sea Preface: With the very recent announcement of Naval Battles in War Thunder has come a bout contention from both the RU and English speaking communities across the forums. We as users are as a whole very happy to learn of the soon-to-be introduced new branch of vehicle warfare to a game that we have loved for years, yet there has been as well as many people upset to hear of the lacking nature of large Capital Ships planned to be included. However as is the true nature of the internet there's more to be known here than can be gathered from basic emotional rhetoric on the attack from one side, and the avocation on the defensive of correctness. As was clarified in an original post from the administration themselves, this part of the game is in very early testing stages, as a team Gaijin is doing as much as they can, with our help and feedback we can help to define what will eventually become of work that has been in progress for several years. The purpose of this admission is to as a whole condense and organize prevalent and well thought out content suggestions, and desires, as they relate mainly to the more controversial aspect of this announcement, being Capital Ships, by the users and community into a linear format that is easy to understand, compound, and build upon; for the community themselves and for the team members of Gaijin. I will make several initial points very clear here; The initial stages of what is known as "Knights of the Sea" Naval Combat will not be compromised of Capital ships but of smaller ships such as the PT-109 and the Project 1124, that is a fact. The next point I will make is that a large portion of users as a whole want to see the introduction of large Capital Ships, which is why we are putting in our effort to define a theoretical archetype that will be compatible with War Thunder's meta and Dagor Engine. I will also like to point out one thing many people will over look; there are probably plenty of people who would be happy with and those that want to play with small fast ships, this is not an attempt to shadow them or ignore their likes or wants within the game, we're here as a whole community. I feel like a link to a post Gaijin made on the 3D engine last year might be relevant to post here: Dagor Engine 4.0 Define [ Capital Ship ] : a large warship such as a battleship or aircraft carrier. This topic is in direct relation to the following post: As of Tuesday, 8/16/2016, over 50 pages and 1,268 replies have been made in an ecstatic response to the announcement and clarifications made about Naval battles in War Thunder. Introduction: Some of the Key Points touched upon by the clarification I will post below, I will build upon this as content grows. This is not the order in which I will order these topics. I will start off with the easier to answer. How to play Mechanics Counting Kills Being Sank Winning Economy Imbalance in Nations Specialty 9. EDIT: Within the above branches are a few further sub-branches that have cropped up upon continually growing each chapter and individual ideas; up to the point that at a time it may prove appropriate to explicitly designate them within a main branch itself, or within more than one main branch. Two such sub-branches that now exist are the Carriers, and the Modules sub-branches. Crew was a sub-branch, but Chapter 2 itself has fleshed out to the point that crews justify its own main branch. This post has so far managed to compile a large majority of the most prevalent suggestions. For each "chapter", under it will be "branches" as each point has several directions to make. I will combine some of these, as there are A LOT of cross-references relevant to each. I'm sure the devs have tested many ideas themselves, many of which we might mention, this is not an attempt to patronize them in anyway. TIER I: PRE-CLOSED_BETA_TESTING Chapter 1 MECHANICS HOW TO PLAY Branch 1. In regards to boosting. NULL: It is by-far an overwhelming conclusion that this is not a desirable mechanic, whatsoever. Branch 2. In regards to planes and ships, and their vulnerabilities. - Sub-Branch 2. In regards to Carriers. OP Edit: Aircraft Spawn: Alter the locations, such as their distances, of spawn locations for aircraft. Whether they spawn on an airfield, or on a carrier, or spawn in the air. Change the distances in which they spawn in order to regulate how they can impact Naval Battles. This effects not only how aircraft target ships, but how they target other aircraft, or are attacked by aircraft. Ship AAA:There are ways to alter the efficiency of Ship Borne AAA, whether it being player-aimed, or AI sprite's just how base AAA is on in-game airfields. You can change the "skill" effectiveness, as if it were a parameter, without changing the velocity of the shells, the accuracy of the guns, or their rate of fire, essentially without damaging its historical accuracy or realism. Basically how good the AI is at actually using said AAA, in regards to self-defense against aircraft. Carriers: Player controlled carriers could direct formations of launched AI aircraft, either launched after battle start, or already air borne. AI controlled carriers could act like sprites and direct AI squadrons, instead of single aircraft, to target ships like AI aircraft behave towards players in other game modes. Carriers: A system could be installed which would incorporate the idea that the only players able to use aircraft in a battle are players that spawn a carrier, however instead of one or a few spawns, this player gets many aircraft spawns, and continues an assault of endurance. However this player can only launch carrier borne craft, and can only launch from said carrier despite conditions. Airfields: On maps with airfields, player launched aircraft from anything other than a carrier would not be limited to carrier borne craft, and have a limited number of spawns. Carriers: A lot of worry has been made about carriers and whether it would work to make them player controlled. Most people suggest the idea that they remain AI controlled. One way to incorporate these ships so that they are reliable upon the competency of players and not the quality of AI alone, would be to have them act like the artillery modification on tanks. Calling in a squadron strike instead of artillery. The lethality of such a strike can be easily modified, such as the accuracy of the squadron, the type of aircraft, the number, their torpedo/bomb load types and quantity. Carriers/Airfields: They could be vulnerable to strikes from not only bombers but strikes of ships, counting for tickets or game winning, much like how they are in game now. Screening: Would it not be possible to spawn large Capital ships with a flotilla of small AI screening ships, for the purpose of protecting the belt of the ship from torpedoes, and for providing additional AAA coverage. Risk Reward/Tickets/RP: Make the risk of not only the ship to the aircraft, but of the aircraft to the ship much heavier, depending on what is found (whether ships or aircraft are more vulnerable to the other), modify tickets lost or gained by either team, for either a sunk or damaged ship, or by a shot down aircraft. Their vehicle must be worth something not only to themselves but to the match. The tickets aren't the only thing worth here either, the players themselves are. Modifying the spawn rate, how soon someone can respawn, and rp required to spawn a vehicle. Meaning if a player didn't earn enough rp to spawn in a new vehicle, they're out of the battle, and also meaning that you can define a cycle of waves, based on time, in which players can spawn new vehicles. All of these are variables you can alter to adjust the rate at which a battle plays out. Aircraft: One suggestion has been made in regards to aircraft and ships, being that planes may be able to maintain radio contact with ships, many things could be done with this, such as aircraft that maintain "spotting" of enemy ships earn themselves more credit, earn ships that then fire on those ships more credit. You could modify this in a certain way, it would be possible to make these vehicle ping on the map, and you could alter for the length of time this shows on the map, which would effect the dynamics of a battle itself. Event specific: Meaning restrict what kinds of aircraft can be spawned, by specific aircraft, much like it is defined in a special event or in tank sim battles, Example being, take out the P-47N, but no the P-47M, etc. Through this you can alter the quality of aircraft against ships, ensuring battles are focused on by the ships themselves. EC: Incorporate naval battles like an Enduring Confrontation style event, in this case as long as carrier remain players could join in aircraft, with capped numbers. Edit 2: (for additions made after the original posting) Carriers/Control: One idea given was that which incorporated that of a player-controlled Carrier, able to maintain direct control of either their own Carrier unit while indirectly controlling aircraft, or their own aircraft unit and indirectly controlling their carrier, basically maintaining control of the orientation and traverse of the other unit or 'squad' of units simultaneously through use of numbered keys (the game could provide alert statuses for various situations, such as close proximity enemy targets approaching your Carrier unit while you are in control of your aircraft). An additional idea, which might prove fruitful would be player gained XP if allied aircraft utilize the Carrier for landing and rearming. Branch 3. In regards to Distances, and maps sizes and How to Play. OP Edit: Objective: How it plays, use Capital ships like objectives themselves, and treat them like airfields. Spawning: The spawn locations as mentioned, could be located at varying distances, separate from those spawn locations of ships. In example, much farther out. Ensuring that aircraft must come in contact with other aircraft, and ensuring enough time can be had for ships to fight themselves, what ever distance or time that is has to be found. Engagement: Many suggestions have been made in regards to how far ships can actually shoot, and the way in which battles could happen. For one, it has been pointed out that it is not impossible for a ship such as the Yamato to make rather tight turns. http://imgur.com/a/aN5Y8 User's have expressed concerns on the stress to the ship itself in this case, but others have pointed out that it would not be game breaking to ignore such stress to a viable extent, in example of relation to the way in which WEP is used on aircraft. The mechanics of ships themselves is another matter, but would it not be possible to incorporate a system or repair similar to tanks, a disabled gun turret able to be repaired? It has been of concern that ships cannot dodge shots, in some cases they may be able to, in others they might not, it has been made a concern that ships would get a lucky shot on another causing it to sink, an example given was Bismarck vs Hood, however many people might not find issue with this, as is it not already possible for a tank to single shot another, whether via crew or ammo shots? Maps: Lots of suggestions have been made in regards to the distances in which ships can shoot. Calculations regarding the range of ships, the speed at which they travel, how they would be able to shoot at each other as well as when they would converge: http://imgur.com/gallery/NOiGQ It could be possible to spawn ships just outside of their effective range, be able to shoot at each other within minutes, and converge in half an hour or less. Objective: A significant percentage of people have suggested the idea of moving away from kill based game play, and focus on manipulating the way in which battles are played by focusing on objective based game play. Ideas have incorporated ships vs ships, ships in conjunction with other vehicles such as landings, escorting fleets, destinations, the idea here is that there are goals which define a victory that does not include killing everyone on the enemy team, within each of these scenarios there are ideas that incorporate dynamics which earn people rp and lions, as well as take away tickets from the enemy team as the game progresses. Designing such matches in a way to incentivize completing the objective. However, it is maintained that ships can still be sank, victory could still be possible through this way; in other words, there are many ways in which to play and complete a battle. example: http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/326775-large-ship-naval-battles-some-clarification/&do=findComment&comment=6384952 warning long spoiler Battle designs: Design maps and objectives to incorporate multiple kinds of vehicles, navy, tanks, aircraft, example: http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/326775-large-ship-naval-battles-some-clarification/&do=findComment&comment=6389132 EC: Create one long Enduring Confrontation style event that could take place over x amount of time. hours, days. etc. Gun battles/ Time of battles EC: Worry has been shown about increasing the size of maps to make a better playing field for large ships. You could remedy this by incorporating ships in an EC Enduring Confrontation style event. Players joining and leaving as they please. Including Capital ships, smaller ships, AI vehicles, aircraft. So aside from objectives, battles could be played where the intention is entirely a slugfest between juggernauts. If someone joins in a ship, their vehicle could either sink, or it could be turned into an AI controlled vehicle. Objective: Other ideas incorporate modified version of modes already in game, such as simple ship based flag capture, such as is already the case in battles, capturing A, B, and C. Objective: Incorporate a rather large map with a centralized objective location, smaller ships focus on the center objective while Capital ships focus on taking out as many enemies as possible. Edit 2:(for additions made after the original posting) Zone Based: In this instance you are able to control, or incentivize the way a game plays rather effectively. Create zones similar to how they currently are in tank battles, such as capturing point A within a certain circle boundary. (for ships, these boundaries could be circular, but not necessarily, you could shape them in ways based on map design to control the direction of motion in a battle). Except in the case of ships paying specific attention to capital ships, create not one, but two cap zones, one inside of the other larger cap zone, these cap zones are shared by both teams. The objective is for a number of players to occupy these zones, by occupying these zones you accrue a score or tickets for your team, a pool of points. The more of your team in, the faster you accrue points. Now, the purpose of two zones, one inside of the other is like a tiered system of zones, the larger zone is for capital ships only, inside the smaller zone is the effective area of occupancy for smaller craft such as PT boats, outside of their respective areas they do not accrue points, meaning they are incentivized to stay in this area of combat and fight, however, they have the ability to leave and target larger capital ships, in the hopes of taking them out, (possibly capital ships accrue more points more quickly) meaning it is up to the player to gamble and decide whether to maintain an occupancy or target the enemy heavy weights, (this creates dynamic game play). In this manner you could set a score point cap to win the game, and through this you eliminate the problem of waiting hours for a capital ship to sink. If the issue of a PT boat attempting to sink or incapacitate a capital ship does not prove fruitful in testing, you could change this system into a tag-type, meaning that successful damage-causing torpedo strikes impede a capital ships ability to collect points for X amount of time, or when a capital ship uses repair or similar systems, they can't accrue points at that time, just as examples. In this system all vehicle players are engaged in the battle continuously, there is a clear definable objective, there is a clearly understood system of winning, players are able to play objectively and or play for the system of sinking enemy ships, and it engages large and small ships together fluidly. For clarification, you can adjust these zone sizes and speed of point gain, so that when enemy ships are lost and they aren't gaining as many points as the enemy the match doesn't simply run away. From a dev standpoint this system is very flexible. Link to visualization: http://imgur.com/a/ddIsr Call In: I thought I had put this in here already, it's probably within one of the other suggestions I made, but on it's own I think it deserves it's own point. As myself and several others have suggested, make capital ships a call-in type consumable, much like how large bombers are in arcade tank battles, earn enough of a score and a prompt will pop up in which you get the ability to pilot a capital ship. Spawn Speed: Don't think this is too much of an issue, it's been thought of by most people but I'll add it anyway. Basically in regards to worries about the speeds of ships, as well as their acceleration, and how long it would take them to traverse or gain speed, simply spawn fleets already in motion much like aircraft are spawned in motion when given air spawns. Here, I would just like to make two points: This is a reiteration of what has been posted once, but I will highlight it, that is that these ships were unique, meaning that unlike thousands of M4's made, not that many Yamato's were made, the presence of such ships was made in multiple engagements around the world, meaning that one ship was present in many battles. So if in an objective based battle, for example a Yamato isn't destroyed in 10 battles, yet battles are won and lost, would that really be a problem? Secondly: I would like to quote the main post by the administration: Chapter 2 COUNTING KILLS BEING SANK WINNING CREW Branch 1. In regards to kills, sinking, and winning. - Sub-branch 1. In regards to Modules. OP Edit: No Enemy Vehicles: On it's own, maintain the basic principle that all enemy vehicles completed destroyed results in a win for the other team. Winning/Tickets: As has been made example through the suggestions listed in Chapter 1-Branch 3 regarding "How to play", there are multiple suggestions in which the definition of a victory could be made without even having to sink an enemy ship, yet the ability to sink an enemy ship still remains possible, meaning both the Objective and the No Enemy Vehicles scenarios remain possible simultaneously, by similar way of the current in game ticket system. Cumulative/Modular: What counts as winning, aside from completely sinking ships or winning a specific objective. Suggestions have been made to make damage done to ships cumulative, and counting that through a score, or tickets. Possibly the installation of a system where damaged modules are recognized by the game, meaning that aside from completely sinking or ship, or taking out every single module, or a predefined set-of-modules, attach a system of points to these modules. Hit an enemy ship with enough force to equal gaining a point. Who ever is better able to cumulatively gain points obviously wins. Define Modules Part 1: If you could define all of the modules as accurate as possible with the Dagor Engine, such as 1: gun turrets, 2: barrels, 3: gun turret trunks, 4: ship range finding equipment, 5: boilers, 6: engines, 7: rudders, 8: ammo racks (which are located in multiple locations), 9: Commanders Bridge, 10: the size of a hole created by a torpedo, 11: the angle at which a ship is listing due to flood water accumulation. If you define what limits the capacity of a ship to commit to combat, you could theoretically design a system in which you can count the ship as "destroyed" or incapacitated even without being sank. If we compare this to the current in game meta, you can earn a kill on a bomber by shooting him and forcing him to crash land. Yet as an intact vehicle he can sit on the ground and still shoot his gunners up at aircraft. Define Modules Part 2: Define when a ship is "destroyed" by defining a set of modules like a tank, and then ranking them based on their importance. Not in order, but on quality of importance, such as giving each a ranking between 1-10. Meaning more than one can share the same rank. Then, when subsequent modules are destroyed, define when a ship is no longer fit for battle, in other words this ship is destroyed because most modules are no longer functioning it cannot combat the enemy. For example in game, a tank can be knocked out when all but 1 crew member is left. Model the effect of catastrophic fires, you can emulate the extinguishing of a fire, but if for example you only extinguish one fire at a time, yet a catastrophic fire is set to 9 out of 10 modules, the ship has been rendered incapacitated. You could still model the sinking of a ship if for example, a majority of these modules are still functioning, but subsequent flooding actually begins submerging the vehicle, effectively drowning it. Or by catastrophic detonation of the ammo or citadel of the ship. Edit 2:(for additions made after the original posting) Define: Similarities have been drawn between an actual "HP" system and current in game module and crew health mechanics. Meaning, that damage done to a module has a quantitative, definable variable, that relates to its level of damage. If you consider the hull, and hull armor of the ship itself as a module, or modules from the perspective of one side vs another, through damage accumulated through this module you could simulate in effect, the listing of the ship, or the loss of buoyancy of the ship. Which could be alleviated through the use of a repair mechanic. Counting Kills: So after accumulating the information seen in Chapter 1-Branch 3 and reiterating appropriate points in Chapter 2-Branch 1 it would seem simple to state that a kill is counted after the state of a "sank" or "incapacitated" ship has been defined. Meaning the issue will resolve itself if the previous issue is at first resolved. The issue of economy is a further later issue that is more easily worked around after the successful definition of a ship-kill. Branch 2. In regards to crew. OP Edit: Crew: Keep crew that way it is and simply model as many of them as is reasonable for the engine, connection, and player rigs. Crew: Turn crew into multiple bleeding-like-chains, each one-long-sprite that spans one-section of the ship, that connects various layers of the ship across long axis', (basically imagine a string that would traverse from bow to stern on the starboard half of the ship, on one layer of deck as an example) instead of turning it into multiple groups that would essentially act like a group of 30 tanks strapped together, the purpose of this exercise is to condense the total number count of sprites yet emulate large numbers of crew members able to move fluidly within a ship, their health being a pool of receivable damage out of a larger chunk, basically emulating the combined mass of all of those members of crew, as this number lowers you can essentially simulate the decreased efficiency of a high population of crew as their numbers become lower. When the total-pool of health is below a point consider the rest of the crew too insignificant, and consider it equal to a tank with 1 crew left, or in other words dead. Crew: Turn crew into multiple groups associated directly with specifically designated areas, acting like modules, such as a group acting in each gun turret, this crew is as such essentially a module of the gun turret, so on and so forth. In this manner you can more accurately define the characteristics of a specialized form of crew, as opposed to the complete fluidity imposed by a chain-like system. These crew within each group are connected to a certain extent. Instead of turning crew into long chains, turn them into globular module-like-sprites, they are in this case essentially modules with a different set of 'laws' applied to them, defining them as crew members. In this manner, the number of active crew can be directly proportional to their allocated receivable damage, meaning that if x amount of damage affects the crew, you can essentially guarantee that due to the nature of ship crews, a group of crew in a gun turret for example will almost indefinitely all be exposed to possible damage at some degree, based on the amount of calculated damage to this crew, you can then directly reduce the proportion of a represented number of crew. To put simply if a crew group of 30 men is allocated 300 dmgHP, and are dealt damage equal of 50, you can simulate that 5 crew have been incapacitated. Edit 2:(for additions made after the original posting) Chapter 3 SPECIALTY ECONOMY IMBALANCE IN NATIONS Branch 1. In regards to selectivity of ships. OP Edit: EC: If concern is the queue times, you could incorporate these battles in a style of EC. The issue of how many Yamato's or Iowa's could be committed to a match would not be as much of a concern. We already have battles where many Maus's could fight other Maus's. What's the issue of 10 Yamato's vs 10 Iowa's? Let it be: In regards to queue times, why not let multiple of these ships into a single battle. With the exception of carriers, multiple BB's in a battle seems to some slightly different in caliber as compared to multiple bombers in an air forces match. It seems that saying they are awkward battles might be true, but we're doubtful it would be much more awkward than a battle made from a small queue of 5 v 5 in RB air battles with lot's of bombers on both teams. If you get a battle with a lot of BB's this seems to be of little issue, and if you have one left on both teams half way through the game, then spawned player aircraft could come in and finish them off, just like they do in ground forces, and otherwise end the battle after 45 minutes like other games modes do. Victory going to who kept the most tickets. Unique vehicles: Players have tried simply pointing to the expletives of vehicles themselves, such as the Arado 234 (without a gun), Maus, R2Y2, Horten 229, as simple examples of special aircraft and their true natures within the game, arguing ships might not be so different. Meaning that they work fine in the game, as well as the fact that limiting these ships in battle is inconsistent with air and ground battles currently in use. Vulnerability: Players have drawn comparisons, pointing out tank destroyers and spaa, and how they have to adapt in battle, an unsupported TD's vulnerability to planes, an spaa's vulnerability to tanks. Being no more of an issue in naval battles than it is now for GF and AF. Edit 2: (for additions made after the original posting) Branch 2. In regards to economy. OP Edit Objective: Many suggestions have been made towards garnering lions and rp through the completion of specific objectives, accomplishments, damage, and assistance in a given battle. Basically as an aside from kill based earning, you gain through your merit in a battle. Earnings: Some have drawn comparisons through experience in other modes such as ground forces, the way credits are earned doesn't change, meaning that killing a Maus in a pz II doesn't mean you'd earn a million lions. So if a lone dive bomber got a kill on a big BB, it'd earn simply however much that kill was worth. In other words should a lone dive bomber be rewarded with that many lions for a single lucky strike? Surely. It would be no different than ammo racking a tank in ground forces with a single lucky strike. Simplify: The composition of a ship can be simplified into several broadened categories. Such as the engine, ammunition, etc. And if you don't want to ignore crew functions, base them through emulations around each of the defined categories. Edit 2:(for additions made after the original posting) Branch 3. In regards to Imbalance between the Nations. OP Edit: NULL: A large portion of people have stated that to deprive the game of a class of ships due to the lack of adequate abilities by one nation to be a moot argument. To ignore all of them simply because the USSR had an inadequate navy has been compared to the state of Japan and its inadequate army tanks. Japan has one of the greatest Navy's in the world and some the greatest aircraft up until their defeat through attrition of their pilots and funding. The USSR had great armored vehicles while Japan did not, Japan had great naval ships while the USSR, for the most part, did not. Time frame: It can be shown that in aircraft and in ground battles, battles between vehicles on varying scales of time already take place, to otherwise change this would be inconsistent with current game meta. Not only this, but quite a few prototype vehicles are already in the game, and have been made to fit where they otherwise perform on-par. Not so bad: It has been also been shown that the USSR has quite an adequate line of cruiser class ships. If at the very least, add ships including DD's, and Cruisers. None: One suggestion is to equate the USSR navy tree to the Japanese tank tree, that is not to include one at all, and if decided, add the tree at a later date. This would be clean. Premium: Add the USSR navy tech tree, but only add a premium line of these ships, so that you don't end up with a half full tree that stops at tier 3, leaving players without an end game ship. So at least they have some ships Cut off: Add the USSR navy tech tree up and until it can no longer compete in that tier, example, up until tier 3 or 4, with no top tier ships to match against other nations. So they at least have more than a few ships. Edit 2:(for additions made after the original posting) Postscript: I would just like to point out the nature of the structuring of the post, the chapters, branches, and individual bullet points. Many ideas are intuitive across many relevant points and have been condensed in a manner as seen fit. From when the original post was made I have expanded from 2 to 3 chapters, moving the contents of what is now simply chapter 3 from where they were before. However chapter 2 is now introduced under its own explicit content. The purpose of this was in part to reiterate points that might have been lost in other branches and points. As well as extract relevant information that on its own is applicable to specific topics of interest in order to express clarity of thought. The further indexing of specific topics as they become more plentiful is seen in the use of sub-branches. ----------------------------------------------------------------- TIER II: POST_CLOSED_BETA_TESTING [no current information] Null As an example of a large ship, here is a post on the IJN Nagato: From here on, we can continue to make suggestions and give ideas. This is a fairly rough draft, it will be worked on over time.