developer Large ship naval battles - Some clarification

[sgtalbers 901]

I see the reasoning behind all that but i have some issues with that: 1.When people here Naval Warfare they think of actual ships not "paddle boats"  i think that this could get a real marketing problem.

  2. What kind of Small Ships: There multiple and very different kind of Vessel: Torpedoboats (Can actually have a lot of guns, see Torpedoboot 1924), Monitors (BB Turrets!), Riverboats, Patrolcrafts, and   so on, balance could be very "odd"

 

Personally i would like to see ships up to Heavy Cruisers.

               

 

[_Lt_Ryan 0]

57 minutes ago, Scarper said:

 or dozen of battleships in one battle without a supporting fleet will be a clumsy and easy target for aircraft.

 

With the mentioning of Aircraft, will certain Naval type aircraft have an advantage over land based ones in ships? 

Will there be a bigger role for Maritime patrol planes and seaplanes?

[AWACS_Ghost_Eye 457]

2 minutes ago, Smin1080p said:

 

The point being you could not have 16 Yamatos in a match with 16 Maus and 16 Sabre F-2s as an example. Whilst the later 2 work, Capital ships are an entirely more complex and substantiated kettle of fish. 

 

Yamato should never be in a battle with Maus. Ships and tanks have no purpose being in combined arms battles outside of naval artillery support to the tank force.

 

Planes and ships work fine. Depending on your plane choice, you may or may not be able to land in on a carrier. Not that the game doesn't let you land not-carrier planes on CV's to begin with. You can just clip the wing on the island and hope that your plane doesn't explode and you can usually repair it.

[NeptuneEXE 1,082]

Understandable since its still in CBT there are still lot of mechanics need to be tested.

Hence im totally holding my opinion for now, but let me just say this you guys tend to overuse the term realistic/realism on this game when this game was never really that realistic to begin with...im not saying its not its just that its not that close to realistic (looking at the GF DM for shells especially AP shells etc, DM for the planes etc) so i hope the term realistic/realism that always tend to be overuse will not be the reason why big ships shouldn't be added.

 

So the only thing i can say is encouragement(etc) i hope gaijin can find a way/reason etc to be able to add the big ships even so good luck with this.

So anyway just good luck o7 

[CptBluemax 32]

What happened to the USN and IJN fleets that were ' nearly finished' over 2 years ago?You just binned the lot or?

[Flankhunter 609]

You guys need to understand the developers.

It needs time to add these big ships,it needs balance and it needs a big brain to make it work in this game.

I won't say anything bad if they don't add battleships in War Thunder.I understand them at some points,adding big ships with realistic gameplay won't make 80% of players happy and they won't even play that ships.Most of people will say that the gameplay is boring and slow.

Edited August 11, 2016 by EnkoACE

[Yewhew 4,389]

1.  Crew- Divide them into different sections?  A bridge crew, an engineering crew, a crew for each turret.  Damage control.  Fire control.  Communications.  Etc.  Instead of treating each crew member as an invidual, you treat them as a team.  Engine room takes an AP hit?  Some percentage of the engineering crew is killed or taken out of action.  Crew performs accordingly.  It's an issue to be solved but I don't see how it's unsolvable.

 

"Large ships were very vulnerable to aircraft."

Sure.  Which is why they are brimming with AA guns.  In the current game, a light bomber can go out, sink a couple cruisers or several destroyers, reload, then take out a fleet aircraft carrier.  That's pretty absurd from a realism standpoint.  If anything the odds are in the ships favor, and plans attacking a ship would be near suicidal.  It's why they had to coordinate their attacks in waves with scores of aircraft, if not hundreds, just to sink a capital ship.    There's a chance to reward team play.

 

"Huge vessels had complex tactics, protection, recon, long range..., etc."  "Travelling for hundreds of miles..."  "Battles that took days"

 

Sure.  And so did tank and airplane warfare.  Unless of course two enemy fleets blundered into each other in which case all those complex tactics go out the window, and it's a big gunnery/torpedo brawl.  With BB's engaging DDs at close range, insane maneuvering, Davids killing Goliaths, and battles ending as suddenly as they started, not too much unlike tank or air matches.  These tended to be nighttime engagements.  I think it would work perfectly fine to have two enemy fleets blunder into each other in reasonable proximity, have the match last a reasonable time, with every class of ship having the potential to do well, and I think if there is a way to pull it off in game I think it's with night battles.  Savo Island, Tassafaronga, first and second naval actions off Guadalcanal, Surigao Straight... all night battles involving surface fleets ranging from PT boats to battleships in relatively close proximity, in time scales not much different than game matches.  And with night battles, much of the problem of aerial warfare and all the long range stuff is muted.  One might say night time surface engagements were a minor part of warfare in WWII.  But so was tank v. tank combat.  Or 16 v. 16 dogfights.

 

2.  Rewards- I think this would handle not too much differently than it is now.  The rewards are based on how long it takes the average player to progress through the tiers, with willingness to spend real money to reduce grinding.  It would have nothing to do with real world logistics at all.  In the game now you can sink a couple fleet carriers in a match, and the reward is trivial.  No reason it would have to be super high just because it's a player controlling the capital ship.

 

3.  Specialty.  I don't see how this is much more of an issue than it is now.  A slow moving tank destroyer, unsupported, is vulnerable to air attack.  An SPAA driver also has to adapt to his vehicle and play it differently than a medium tank.  I also don't see why quantitative matchmaking wouldn't ameliorate the waiting issue.  People waiting for battles in their BBs?  Same number on each side.  Too many BBs, not enough destroyers?  Limit four per match, like with bombers.  Everybody queueing in a Yamato, and nobody in a Missouri?  Mixed battles.  Yeah mixed battles isn't very popular.  But a navy game without navy warships?  I think people will settle.  

[Chris_071 84]

1 minute ago, CptBluemax said:

What happened to the USN and IJN fleets that were ' nearly finished' over 2 years ago?You just binned the lot or?

This

[Snake509 762]

The way I see most battles playing out right now, is that intel/reconnaissance has located a group of enemy units, and you and your teammates have moved to the area.  So the major part of any kind of battle (moving to engage) has already taken place, and now we jump into the battle part.

 

Certain new maps in SB have done a fantastic job of allowing a widely divers deployment scheme (particularly Tunisia in SB), yet to add layers and incentive to the gameplay (especially to tanks and ships; planes to a lesser extent) we need more options for deployment based on vehicles (mediums front and center (fast mediums can deploy on the wings) light tanks can deploy at any location, heavies center rear deployment for tanks as an example) this could allow you to even make singular exceptions to the rule based on the map (i.e. one tank destroyer or other type of tank for every light tank on the wings.)  Now this application can be applied reliably to ships, and using the limitations we were given in the WWII Chronicles events, we could allow X amount of BB's or BC's (different tonnage limits for different classes except destroyers and patrol boats?)

 

 

[Flankhunter 609]

1 minute ago, *ImperialAdmiral said:

WoWs eats WT Naval forces for dinner at this point.

Nope.

Wargaming adds bunch of WW2 vehicles without 10% of realistic gameplay. You can simply add a floating sh!t on WoWs and it will work just fine.

On War Thunder....it's not the same.

[Em_Dee 47]

Make a bundle with IJN and I'll be in in a heart beat  

[HolyCarrot 745]

Whilst I am disappointed to hear the lack of large ships I completely understand the issues and tbh was always curious if you could even pull it off.

Whilst a select few players (which make up a large portion of the forum, hence the old "can't listen to just the forum" debate comes in) will love a hour - 2 hour battle, I for one wouldn't. Interesting to see how this turns out. People here to realise the the mechanics of operating a battleship even remotely realistic is more suited to a stratergy game than a vehicular combat game like WT.

I can only see large ships working in purely ship vs ship combat...I couldn't imagine the horror of planes destroying ships in RB/SB battles where you'd be sailing for 10 minutes + before firing a shell...Not fun.

[Smin1080p 60,203]

6 minutes ago, AWACS_Ghost_Eye said:

 

Yamato should never be in a battle with Maus. Ships and tanks have no purpose being in combined arms battles outside of naval artillery support to the tank force.

 

Planes and ships work fine. Depending on your plane choice, you may or may not be able to land in on a carrier. Not that the game doesn't let you land not-carrier planes on CV's to begin with. You can just clip the wing on the island and hope that your plane doesn't explode and you can usually repair it.

 

Ultimately however, as we move closer to larger scale battles with EC and other combined armed battles, the end result will be all 3 military arms working in unison. We already have AI capital ships in games with planes and tanks.

 

In fact one of the main attractions for people to War Thunder is the World War concept with all 3 branches within large ongoing battles. 

 

Segregation of any one of those 3 arms is a step backwards from this goal, not a step forward. 

[Pappina 1,791]

1) Map size can be adjusted to make it so you aren't spending hours trying to see some combat(you already did this with tanks and aircraft)

2) Most battles of any sort historically took hours, months, even years. Also, a gunnery duel between two capital ships wouldn't take that very long unless they are trying to hit each other from long range.

3) Ship AA would be plenty of defense against any pilots wanting to attack them. Unless you are attacked by a group they wouldn't pose that big a threat.

[Capt_Fine_Falke 372]

What. Will. PT boats. Do. Against. Tanks? Riddle me this.

[Smin1080p 60,203]

Just now, Capt_Fine_Falke said:

What. Will. PT boats. Do. Against. Tanks? Riddle me this.

 

PT boats specifically should not even be near or within any proximity to tanks.

 

Other classes of ships however...

[SubRyan 5,556]

Just now, Smin1080p said:

 

Ultimately however, as we move closer to larger scale battles with EC and other combined armed battles, the end result will be all 3 military arms working in unison. We already have AI capital ships in games with planes and tanks.

 

In fact one of the main attractions for people to War Thunder is the World War concept with all 3 branches within large ongoing battles. 

 

Segregation of any one of those 3 arms is a step backwards from this goal, not a step forward. 

 

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. So you are going to automatically cripple all 3 modes when it should be planes & ships and planes & vehicles. The only way having all three on a same map would work is if you did amphibous invasions.

[Sunleader 5,877]

Sigh.

So the Worst has Happened.

War Thunder will not do Capital Ships....

Guess its time to leave then. My Hopes are Crushed my Time was Wasted.

I thank you for the Clarification tough. As this spares me wasting any more Time and Money on this.

 

 

Now some Constructive Comments. Just to play the Smart guy.

 

1.

Capital Ships dont need higher Speed.

They Fought on high Distance for a Reason. Which is that they had very High Range.

 

Aircraft come with the very Same Problem between Bombers and Fighters.

And the Solution is as easy as it is Working. Being that Bombers are Spawned at higher Altitude.

 

Likewise the Simple Solution is to Spawn Capital Ships Based on their Role.

 

15 Knots which is a Fair Speed and is Reached even by most WW1 Battleships. Still means you travel 450m in 1 Minute.

X2 means 900m per Minute as Both Fleets Advance to each other. Now lets take a Good 6 Minutes you allow for Approach. Including Acceleation. And you come out on 5km Range you can Set the Ships Apart from each other which they can easily Bridge with PERFECTLY HISTORICAL Speeds.

And pls note Many later WW2 Battleships could go well over 20 Knots and even more.

 

Now another Factor comes in Handy.

Unlike Reality we will not be Firing on Scouts so much.

Just like Tanks in the Game are not relying on Infantry for Scouting and Escort. (Just to dismantle the "Historical Accuracy" thing right off the Bat)

The Horizon from a 30m Tower is 20km And albeit some Ships could look Further. The Engagements also usually took Place on this or lower Range for Optical Fire Control Targeting. Meaning this aint even Unhistorical either.

So most Ships wont Engage each other above 20km even if their Guns can in Theory Shoot way Further than this.

 

So Simple thing.

The Objective is Center Point.

The Spawn for Capital Ships will be 15km From this Central Point. Meaning that Capital Ships are 30km Apart. (Can Vary from 25km to 30km depending on Map and Experience with the Tests) 

Screens will be 10km from this Central Point. Meaning 20km Apart from enemy Screens and 25km Away from Enemy Capitals.

 

This way Capitals will Meet each other after 10 Minutes.

Screens Will meet each other more or less Immediately albeit they might not be close enough to Fire yet.

After 5 Minutes the Screens of the Enemy will be in Firing Range for Capitals.

And of course Carriers will have the Ability to Strike Enemies early on.

 

This is not exactly Hard to Bridge.

 

 

2.

To begin with this Argument doesnt hold Water tough.

For Tanks as well as Aircraft these Battles Historically as well took Days and Hours.

And Ingame they dont take this long. Which is Logical because just like it would be with Ships we will Engage each other. Meaning the Behavior wont be Historical thus the Fights wont be as Long either.

Needless to Mention that Aircraft in RB and SB as well have similar Approach Times.

 

900m per Minute even for a Slow Ship.

Means that even these very slow WW1 Ships within 30 Minutes can Travel 27km

Which is more than enough to Reach an 20km Away Objective. So if you wanted. You could Place Ships 40km apart and they would still be able to Battle Nicely within the Normal Time Limits we got for SB and RB Air Matches.

 

For AB were such stuff is Ignored you can just Place em 20km Apart. Meaning that they will be in Firing Range right away just like you already do it in Ground Battles anyways.

 

 

3.

Economy.

Erm ?

Now First Off. You Currently Value the Kill of an Tank with 5 Crewmen. LOWER than you Count a Kill of an Fighter with 1 Pilot.

So pls dont bring this Up. It only reminds us of other Troubles.

Moreover the Same is True for Aircraft and Tanks.

Sometimes a Tank is really hard to Kill. I myself have often stood under Fire for over 5 minutes. And thats not the Battle Time but was literally just me Standing there Taking Fire. 

Lucky Hits are just as true. Ammo Explosion for Tanks is the same. And likewise I love the Pilot Snipes you get from Aircraft Sometimes. Ending the Battle right away.

 

So Honestly. This Sounds like an Makeshift Explanation to Justify this Terrible Decision.

 

 

4.

Mate no Offense.

But as I said above.

The Same is True for Tanks and Aircraft.

A Bomber does not have 5 Hours of Fuel just for the Heck of it.

And Tank Battles could last WEEKS for Heavens sake.

Needless to say that this Role thingy is the exactly same.

Every Single Day we have Battles with more Heavy Tanks than you would usually ever get in an 15 vs 15 Engagement.

15 Tiger-II Tanks in the same Battle ?

Heck everyday the Number of Tiger-2 Spawned and Killed in this Game is higher than the Entire War Production Germany had.

 

 

 

 

 

So Sorry. But Right now this looks like Justification for an Terrible Decision.

But oh well. I am out. I am Frustrated to the Edge right now. So I should get out of here before I start Swearing....

[Flankhunter 609]

1 minute ago, Capt_Fine_Falke said:

What. Will. PT boats. Do. Against. Tanks? Riddle me this.

First....why do you want to fight tanks in a ship?

If you want naval battle,there's not tanks mate XD

[Chris_071 84]

3 minutes ago, Smin1080p said:

 

Ultimately however, as we move closer to larger scale battles with EC and other combined armed battles, the end result will be all 3 military arms working in unison. We already have AI capital ships in games with planes and tanks.

 

In fact one of the main attractions for people to War Thunder is the World War concept with all 3 branches within large ongoing battles. 

 

Segregation of any one of those 3 arms is a step backwards from this goal, not a step forward. 

So will I be able to ambush AI Battleships with my StugIV?

[Capt_Fine_Falke 372]

Just now, Smin1080p said:

 

PT boats specifically should not even be near or within any proximity to tanks.

 

Other classes of ships however...

 

What classes? What will have any effective armament against armored targets on land which will also have the range. Destroyers are only a possibility, what will we get for higher tiers? Boats with cruise missiles? What else can we get for "Fast attack craft" 

[Shelldrayk 180]

-

Edited February 11, 2022 by Shelldrayk

[AWACS_Ghost_Eye 457]

7 minutes ago, Smin1080p said:

 

Ultimately however, as we move closer to larger scale battles with EC and other combined armed battles, the end result will be all 3 military arms working in unison. We already have AI capital ships in games with planes and tanks.

 

In fact one of the main attractions for people to War Thunder is the World War concept with all 3 branches within large ongoing battles. 

 

Segregation of any one of those 3 arms is a step backwards from this goal, not a step forward. 

 

Please. Give me a single example of tanks and ships working together other than naval artillery support. I'll wait. No, fast attack craft don't count, they're boats not ships.

 

This is a bad excuse. I don't think that anyone sane is expecting to have ships, tanks and planes in the same battle because it makes no sense at all. The closest you'd get is to have LST's sail to the coast and have tanks disembark, supported by naval artillery. Sure, you may have them on the same map, but you'd be insane to expect them to work together in any other way than the aforementioned naval artillery support.

Edited August 11, 2016 by AWACS_Ghost_Eye

[Smin1080p 60,203]

Just now, SubRyan said:

 

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. So you are going to automatically cripple all 3 modes when it should be planes & ships and planes & vehicles. The only way having all three on a same map would work is if you did amphibous invasions.

 

Not every battle will feature all 3, in the same way we have Air AB/RB and combined battles. 

 

The point remains that people are looking at this from different perspectives.

 

You have those with an AB perspective 

You have those with an RB perspective 

You have those with an SB perspective 

You have those with a combined battle/world war perspective 

 

The larger picture however is you simply cannot introduce something as large as a 3rd military arm into the game without considerations for EVERYTHING and all outcomes. Which is exactly what the CBT and the the community feedback is for.

[Capt_Fine_Falke 372]

2 minutes ago, EnkoACE said:

First....why do you want to fight tanks in a ship?

If you want naval battle,there's not tanks mate XD

 

I don't want tanks vs ships, but that is what the mods/devs are implying