What kind of ships do you think should be playable in light of War thunder's small(ish) ship/ boat plan? (I encourage you to read the description of each class below before you vote in the poll so you get an idea of what they are capable of)   193 members have voted

  1. 1. Heavy/ Light Cruisers

    • Heavy Cruisers
      21
    • Light Cruisers
      43
    • Both
      133
    • None
      18
  2. 2. Destroyers

    • Yes
      185
    • No
      8
  3. 3. Frigates

    • Yes
      181
    • No
      12
  4. 4. Corvettes

    • Yes
      176
    • No
      17
  5. 5. If you chose no to all of these ships, do you only want boats?

    • Yes
      7
    • I did not say no to including ships.
      186
  6. 6. Though it is very unlikely to be added, do you want things like battleships and battlecruisers to be added to war thunder as playable warships?

    • Battleships will work in the naval meta.
      13
    • Battlecruisers (less armored, but faster, similarly armed) will work in the naval meta.
      17
    • Both will work in the naval meta.
      98
    • Neither will work in the naval meta.
      45
  7. 7. Monitors

    • Yes
      134
    • No
      26
  8. 8. Auxiliary Cruisers

    • Yes
      128
    • No
      31
  9. 9. Though they are the least likely to be playable, how do you think Aircraft Carriers can work?

    • They should remain as they are.
      38
    • They should remain as A.I. but available as a form of artillery. (similar to ground forces, but with planes)
      49
    • They should be playable.
      35
  10. 10. Though they are unlikely to be in war thunder as A.I. or playable warships, what capacity do you think Submarines can be in?

    • Submarines can be A.I. in the naval meta.
      29
    • Submarines can be playable in the naval meta.
      58
    • Submarines cannot work in the naval meta.
      35

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

106 posts in this topic

What I find weird is that files have been found for player controlled vehicles like the Artilleriefährprahm D-1:

1920px-Artilleriefaehrprahm_Modell_1.JPG

It goes at 8 knots, but then Gaijin says that a major balancing issue is that larger ships are too slow.

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mercedes4321 said:

What I find weird is that files have been found for player controlled vehicles like the Artilleriefährprahm D-1:

1920px-Artilleriefaehrprahm_Modell_1.JPG

It goes at 8 knots, but then Gaijin says that a major balancing issue is that larger ships are too slow.

Think about it. When player can fight successfully against these using only MTBs they are ready to take on bigger and faster prey. But they fail or steering one of those is boring as hell there would be no point in adding a faster version. 

And I think slow doesn't only mean slow in speed, but also slow in acceleration and going down. 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Lord_of_Sofa said:

Think about it. When player can fight successfully against these using only MTBs they are ready to take on bigger and faster prey. But they fail or steering one of those is boring as hell there would be no point in adding a faster version. 

And I think slow doesn't only mean slow in speed, but also slow in acceleration and going down. 

 

This looks like it goes from stop to full ahead and back to stop in 10 miles, that is certainly not an argument.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Lord_of_Sofa said:

Think about it. When player can fight successfully against these using only MTBs they are ready to take on bigger and faster prey. But they fail or steering one of those is boring as hell there would be no point in adding a faster version. 

And I think slow doesn't only mean slow in speed, but also slow in acceleration and going down. 

 

I hope the devs look into the sinking animation pretty soon, since a 40m boat doesn't fully sink in two seconds.

 

A couple of news pieces have also elaborated on how sturdy the construction of boats was, and that even when split in half it might take hours for the actual sinking to happen, right?

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2016 at 6:10 PM, Mercedes4321 said:

What I find weird is that files have been found for player controlled vehicles like the Artilleriefährprahm D-1:

1920px-Artilleriefaehrprahm_Modell_1.JPG

It goes at 8 knots, but then Gaijin says that a major balancing issue is that larger ships are too slow.

:dntknw:Yea, things are certainly cloudy in terms of balance for naval forces. At least something we can look forward to is that we are within a 2 month window from the release of the closed beta (HYPE) because Gaijin says the closed beta will release before the end of the year.

 

This is certainly something odd if these would be really playable in WT considering their speed, for all we know these may be only playable in the campaign portion (if they are really playable in-game).

Edited by *Harbinger2167
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, tizianenel said:

 

I hope the devs look into the sinking animation pretty soon, since a 40m boat doesn't fully sink in two seconds.

 

A couple of news pieces have also elaborated on how sturdy the construction of boats was, and that even when split in half it might take hours for the actual sinking to happen, right?

I would assume that a boat/ ship in War Thunder wouldn't need to sink to be considered destroyed. Similar to how tanks don't need to be detonated or burning to be knocked out of combat (example: crew taken out, tank looks perfectly fine).

 

If they do have realistic sinking for larger boats and ships, then either the ship wreckage will despawn (like player controlled tanks), it might be a physical object that smaller boats and ships can use as cover, or it can be an obstacle you'd have to go around (I wonder how well boat/ ship collision will work in WT). There's a lot of possibilities, but maybe i'm just looking into this too much.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, *Harbinger2167 said:

I would assume that a boat/ ship in War Thunder wouldn't need to sink to be considered destroyed. Similar to how tanks don't need to be detonated or burning to be knocked out of combat (example: crew taken out, tank looks perfectly fine).

 

Well, that does sound a little odd in case of watercraft though. Yes, tanks can be still intact or repariable while its crew has perished, but I haven't heard of a ship/boat drifting through waters with not a single crew left alive... Quite the contrary, it's not uncommon for a portion of the crew to survive the sinking of the ship. If crew knocking out proves to be more common than hull destruction, that will only increase the "tanks on water" effect IMO.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could look at PT 109 as an example.  Boat was sliced in half, 2 crew men were killed but rest survived.  Portion of the boat was floating but was combat ineffective, I am sure the guys would have climbed onto the bow and shot with their 37 mm gun or launched a torpedo if they could have, right?

 

When does the boat become combat ineffective?  That's the question that will have to be answered by the developers when they are making the CBT, and hopefully the players will have some say in that also.  Would it be realistic to run a pt boat (any nation) with only 2 crew? If no, how many crew would be required, one in motor room, one captain, one at each main gun (that's up to 5 or 6 crew at a bare minimum now), guy manning the torpedoes, depth charges?  What is the cut off for crew going to be? 

 

How much damage has to be taken before the vehicle is combat ineffective?  Motor and gun destroyed? Will they have tow cable for a friendly to pull you to base for repairs?  Will you be able to carry out minor repairs without getting a repair mod?

 

What is RB and SB going to look like, as they have to return to base to reload their weapons, 4 torpedoes and a couple of depth charges, how many rounds of ammo did the guns carry?, then off to base to reload.  How far is the base going to be from the battle?  5 min, 7 min, 10 min at top speed?

Edited by KillerAce4
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would guess that it will replicate the experience in RB and SB in the air, similar return times. However apart from NPC battleships, there may be few non gun worthy targets.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had hoped to come back with a fair amount of game time in the naval pre-beta tests, but I only managed to play 4 matches during the second test so I still can't give any accurate first impressions. Seeing as there hasn't been another test for more than a month, I was wondering if anyone that managed to get a good few matches in during those two sessions felt it was a good, bad, or mediocre experience. 

 

I would like to note that the newly announced German boat: the MZ1, is certainly a step in the right direction, though we are still far away from actual playable warships in WT.   :004_2:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/01/2017 at 11:03 AM, KillerAce4 said:

Corvettes confirmed by release of Project 122bis submarine chaser developer blog, I would assume.  Good to see Gaijin is working their way up in size.  Can't wait to play.

 

Don't forget the german MZ1

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On January 13, 2017 at 8:03 AM, KillerAce4 said:

Corvettes confirmed by release of Project 122bis submarine chaser developer blog, I would assume.  Good to see Gaijin is working their way up in size.  Can't wait to play.

11 hours ago, Protoboy17 said:

 

Don't forget the german MZ1

 

Correct me if i'm wrong but i'm pretty sure neither the MZ1, nor the Project 122bis are corvettes. Though they are certainly very close. 

 

Perhaps this means by the time we have access to the full tech tree (when the real closed beta test launches :004_2:) we might potentially see some corvettes. :D

Edited by *Harbinger2167
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, *Harbinger2167 said:

 

Correct me if i'm wrong but i'm pretty sure neither the MZ1, nor the Project 122bis are corvettes. Though they are certainly very close. 

Apparently there was only one Corvette during WW2,  the Flower Class. 

 

The KM even captured several of them,  but classified them as Escort Boats. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Lord_of_Sofa said:

Apparently there was only one Corvette during WW2,  the Flower Class. 

 

The KM even captured several of them,  but classified them as Escort Boats. 

 

Ah ok, thank you for clarifying, bit of a derp moment there for me. :016:

 

Looking into it a bit deeper the general grounds for qualifying something as a Corvette (perhaps) is a surface combatant of less than 1500 tons but more than 1000 tons of full load displacement. Under those grounds the Project 122bis and the German MZ1 only displace a bit above 300 tons full load displacement, so they remain as boats. However, even the corvette connoisseur known as Britain broke these rules with their Castle class corvettes.

 

Again, many nations had their own definition of what a warship class is, and even then, they often broke their own rules of classification! (which is a bit of a headache) :facepalm:

 

It's true that it was mostly Britain that boasted Corvettes during WW2, though Australia and Italy also had some of their own as well. Many nations had vessels that could qualify as Corvettes, but they simply either didn't use the classification, or they had a different definition.

 

Corvettes were in use most notably during World War 2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and many modern conflicts.

 

I don't mean to sound like a smart aleck or anything, I sure as heck learned a lot of things writing this. It's like looking down the rabbit hole or watching Inception for the first time. Pretty cool stuff. Thank you! :good:

 

I will add a few things to the Corvette class section later on today or tomorrow, i'd like to give a shout out to KillerAce4Protoboy17, and Lord_of_Sofa for helping me learn a good bit more about them.

Edited by *Harbinger2167
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I strongly disagree with the idea of having to get to a certain tier to play the ship type you want (BBs only Tier 4-5, DDs Tier 2, etc.) since you can play many different kinds of aircraft and tanks all in Tier 1 alone, so why should ships (boats currently) be any different? Besides, that will seriously cramp up the tech tree.

 

Start with Interwar or even some WWI vessels and work your way along the 'timeline' for each type of ship/boat.

 

I'll use BBs as an example: Something like the Iowa or Yamato would still be top tier, but you would know how to use them relatively well from playing earlier BBs like the HMS Dreadnought in order to reach them instead of a sudden change in gameplay style.

 

Also, why not just add "-class" to the end of each ship? That would solve the problem of there being 'too many of the same ship'.

 

(I've always said Tier instead of Rank, they mean the same thing to me)

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Exo333 said:

I strongly disagree with the idea of having to get to a certain tier to play the ship type you want (BBs only Tier 4-5, DDs Tier 2, etc.) since you can play many different kinds of aircraft and tanks all in Tier 1 alone, so why should ships (boats currently) be any different? Besides, that will seriously cramp up the tech tree.

False equivalency.

 

Aircraft are fairly fragile and the two fairly consistent areas that both bombers and fighters improved in are speed and weaponry.  Planes get more lethal and generally everything higher tier has a significant advantage over the lower tier equipment.

 

Tanks, even though they are "classified" as light, medium, heavy, what have you, also vary and improve in speed, armament, and armour as time goes on.  A "medium' tank at T4 can have more armour and firepower than a "heavy" tank at T3, e.g. T-44 vs KV-85, T-34 vs T-35, Cromwell vs Independent.

 

Naval Vessels throw that nice progression out the window.  The HMS Dreadnought, as your example, is armed with 5x twin 302mm cannons and has hundreds of millimeters of armour everywhere.  20mm cannons on the tiny fishing boats that have been announced thus far won't pen it, nor will the Rocket Launcher Boat, 37mm cannons, 40mm bofors, or even the large 85mm cannons found on other vessels, so the only possible solution is their torpedoes.  But, given the range of twin 302mm cannons (as well as a bunch of 12lbers for self defense).

HMS Dreadnought 1906 H61017.jpg

 

Now let's take the Chamsuri-class Patrol Boat.  Following your logic of separate trees per class, this could be a high-tier premium for Japan.  It's modern, sleek, and is armed with a Bofors and two Sea Vulcan 20mm gatling cannons, which were capable of shooting down Anti-Ship Missiles.  It's like strapping two M163s on your 40mm cannon boat.

2010. 7. 동해 한미연합 훈련 Rep. of Korea Navy korea us combine training (7554655104).jpg

 

So, where would you place the Chamsuri-class compared to the Dreadnought?

 

Would it go above the Dreadnought?  The Dreadnought can knock out a Chamsuri from miles away, and the Chamsuri can't even take out a Dreadnought at point blank [no torpedoes].

 

Would it go below the Dreadnought?  Then, since the Dreadnought is supposed to be a "medium-low tiered BB", you've tacitly accepted the premise of the class-tier system: The smaller boats simply won't be able to compete with the bigger ships, so the bigger ship classes must remain at higher tiers than the lower ones.

 

Now, perhaps you'll argue that "well, the Chamsuri would basically be the SPAAG of the seas so it shouldn't be taking on battleships anyways."  Fine.  Then one must wonder what the role of this ship is in higher tiers when the Iowa-class Battleship ends up with dozens of Bofors guns and Oerlikon autocannons for anti-aircraft purposes in its WWII configuration (and 4x Phalanxes and Tomahawks in its cold-war configuration...)

 

TL;DR: Letting classes in from T1 to T5 won't work like it does with tanks and aircraft because the classes actually mean something in terms of size, firepower and armor.  300mm cannons and 200mm belt armor is still 300mm cannons and 200mm belt armor, even in 1905.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Retry said:

So, where would you place the Chamsuri-class compared to the Dreadnought?

 

Would it go above the Dreadnought?  The Dreadnought can knock out a Chamsuri from miles away, and the Chamsuri can't even take out a Dreadnought at point blank [no torpedoes].

 

Would it go below the Dreadnought?  Then, since the Dreadnought is supposed to be a "medium-low tiered BB", you've tacitly accepted the premise of the class-tier system: The smaller boats simply won't be able to compete with the bigger ships, so the bigger ship classes must remain at higher tiers than the lower ones.

 

Now, perhaps you'll argue that "well, the Chamsuri would basically be the SPAAG of the seas so it shouldn't be taking on battleships anyways."  Fine.  Then one must wonder what the role of this ship is in higher tiers when the Iowa-class Battleship ends up with dozens of Bofors guns and Oerlikon autocannons for anti-aircraft purposes in its WWII configuration (and 4x Phalanxes and Tomahawks in its cold-war configuration...)

 

 

That's just it though, different classes of ships and boats were designed for different purposes. Your example, the Chamsuri-class, would be best suited to intercepting enemy MTBs and PTs while the BBs focus on what they do best, sinking enemy BBs and cruisers. It's impractical for a BB to fire on Destroyers and smaller vessels with it's main armament as that's simply not what they were designed to do.

 

True, the Dreadnought can knock out a Chamsuri from miles away, but only if it hits the target which is more trouble than it's worth with such a small target. The speed difference is another big factor; the Dreadnought's top speed was 21 knots wheras the Chamsuri can do 37 knots, a massive difference.

 

In other words the small size and high speed of such a target deter BBs from firing on them because the chance of actually hitting it is simply too little while they know their own guns have too long of a reload time and too slow of a traverse speed for fighting it effectively.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Retry said:

False equivalency.

 

Aircraft are fairly fragile and the two fairly consistent areas that both bombers and fighters improved in are speed and weaponry.  Planes get more lethal and generally everything higher tier has a significant advantage over the lower tier equipment.

 

Tanks, even though they are "classified" as light, medium, heavy, what have you, also vary and improve in speed, armament, and armour as time goes on.  A "medium' tank at T4 can have more armour and firepower than a "heavy" tank at T3, e.g. T-44 vs KV-85, T-34 vs T-35, Cromwell vs Independent.

 

Naval Vessels throw that nice progression out the window.  The HMS Dreadnought, as your example, is armed with 5x twin 302mm cannons and has hundreds of millimeters of armour everywhere.  20mm cannons on the tiny fishing boats that have been announced thus far won't pen it, nor will the Rocket Launcher Boat, 37mm cannons, 40mm bofors, or even the large 85mm cannons found on other vessels, so the only possible solution is their torpedoes.  But, given the range of twin 302mm cannons (as well as a bunch of 12lbers for self defense).

HMS Dreadnought 1906 H61017.jpg

 

Now let's take the Chamsuri-class Patrol Boat.  Following your logic of separate trees per class, this could be a high-tier premium for Japan.  It's modern, sleek, and is armed with a Bofors and two Sea Vulcan 20mm gatling cannons, which were capable of shooting down Anti-Ship Missiles.  It's like strapping two M163s on your 40mm cannon boat.

2010. 7. 동해 한미연합 훈련 Rep. of Korea Navy korea us combine training (7554655104).jpg

 

So, where would you place the Chamsuri-class compared to the Dreadnought?

 

Would it go above the Dreadnought?  The Dreadnought can knock out a Chamsuri from miles away, and the Chamsuri can't even take out a Dreadnought at point blank [no torpedoes].

 

Would it go below the Dreadnought?  Then, since the Dreadnought is supposed to be a "medium-low tiered BB", you've tacitly accepted the premise of the class-tier system: The smaller boats simply won't be able to compete with the bigger ships, so the bigger ship classes must remain at higher tiers than the lower ones.

 

Now, perhaps you'll argue that "well, the Chamsuri would basically be the SPAAG of the seas so it shouldn't be taking on battleships anyways."  Fine.  Then one must wonder what the role of this ship is in higher tiers when the Iowa-class Battleship ends up with dozens of Bofors guns and Oerlikon autocannons for anti-aircraft purposes in its WWII configuration (and 4x Phalanxes and Tomahawks in its cold-war configuration...)

 

TL;DR: Letting classes in from T1 to T5 won't work like it does with tanks and aircraft because the classes actually mean something in terms of size, firepower and armor.  300mm cannons and 200mm belt armor is still 300mm cannons and 200mm belt armor, even in 1905.

 

11 hours ago, Exo333 said:

 

That's just it though, different classes of ships and boats were designed for different purposes. Your example, the Chamsuri-class, would be best suited to intercepting enemy MTBs and PTs while the BBs focus on what they do best, sinking enemy BBs and cruisers. It's impractical for a BB to fire on Destroyers and smaller vessels with it's main armament as that's simply not what they were designed to do.

 

True, the Dreadnought can knock out a Chamsuri from miles away, but only if it hits the target which is more trouble than it's worth with such a small target. The speed difference is another big factor; the Dreadnought's top speed was 21 knots wheras the Chamsuri can do 37 knots, a massive difference.

 

In other words the small size and high speed of such a target deter BBs from firing on them because the chance of actually hitting it is simply too little while they know their own guns have too long of a reload time and too slow of a traverse speed for fighting it effectively.

 

These are both very valid and interesting arguments.

I sure hope i'm interpreting them correctly! :D

 

Naval forces would work in a completely different manner from both Air and Ground forces. Historically, yes, different classes of warships had different roles in a battle or overall objective. But what has ever been historically accurate when a player is in the controls of a vehicle? They do not have to worry about the death of themselves or their friends, and often times they don't even have to worry about winning or losing the match. People who play War Thunder (or any game for that matter) are just playing it to have fun, doing things they find interesting and have a good time with (or grind for a month just to get to tier 5 ground forces *cough cough*). When has a Black Prince ever shot down a plane with it's main cannon? When did SPAA's regularly drive ahead of their team specifically to kill enemy tanks? When did high altitude bombers go below 500 meters to bomb enemy vehicles in enemy territory during daytime?

 

The game needs to be balanced to reflect what happens when you put a vehicle in the hands of someone who is going to do what they want to do, this is why I put different naval classes in different potential tiers. Players in control of a ship more often than not will do something that would NEVER be done in real life just because they want to, they don't have an admiral giving them orders, and they don't care about the lives of potentially hundreds of crewmen on their ship.

 

Again, it is very early, and we still haven't even seen any real playable ships in War Thunder yet. I really hope I don't come off as rude or anything, the potential tiers I have up right now are super speculative, and they may or may not work.

 

Only time shall tell I suppose...

 

Edited by *Harbinger2167
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, *Harbinger2167 said:

Naval forces would work in a completely different manner from both Air and Ground forces. Historically, yes, different classes of warships had different roles in a battle or overall objective. But what has ever been historically accurate when a player is in the controls of a vehicle? They do not have to worry about the death of themselves or their friends, and often times they don't even have to worry about winning or losing the match. People who play War Thunder (or any game for that matter) are just playing it to have fun, doing things they find interesting and have a good time with (or grind for a month just to get to tier 5 ground forces *cough cough*). When has a Black Prince ever shot down a plane with it's main cannon? When did SPAA's regularly drive ahead of their team specifically to kill enemy tanks? When did high altitude bombers go below 500 meters to bomb enemy vehicles in enemy territory during daytime?

 

Fun Fact: There was a report of a Tiger tank shooting down a plane with it's main cannon IRL, but that's another story for another time

 

I can't disagree with that argument though, especially since I've done some pretty stupid things with the Heinkel 111. I'm also one of those SPAA drivers who kill enemy tanks and get yelled at for doing so by the overly serious players. In other words your argument is just as valid as mine and Retry's.

 

I made my argument because I'm afraid that with 'Tier restrictions' the game will get repetitive and boring. I remember back when I played the game Navyfield that this was a frequent problem, it took far too long to get to the next type of ship and in doing this I got bored of the game several times. (I liked the game overall, but I don't want another situation like that.) While I hate the HP system in WoWS, I can commend that game for not having the 'Tier restrictions' nearly as much since you get access to all the ship types fairly early and can choose the one that suits you (I'm talking about Destroyers, Cruisers, and Battleships, the Carrier situation is a bit iffy).

 

I could go into further detail about how I think ships should control, how the crew situation should be handled, etc. but I don't know if this is the place for that so I'll leave it here.

 

1 hour ago, *Harbinger2167 said:

I really hope I don't come off as rude or anything, the potential tiers I have up right now are super speculative, and they may or may not work.

 

Don't worry you didn't sound rude at all, that's what we're here to find out aren't we? What ways can ships work and which would be the best overall?

Edited by Exo333
Grammar
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Exo333 said:

Fun Fact: There was a report of a Tiger tank shooting down a plane with it's main cannon IRL, but that's another story for another time

 

I didn't expect that... :008:

 

2 hours ago, Exo333 said:

I can't disagree with that argument though, especially since I've done some pretty stupid things with the Heinkel 111. I'm also one of those SPAA drivers who kill enemy tanks and get yelled at for doing so by the overly serious players. In other words your argument is just as valid as mine and Retry's.

 

I made my argument because I'm afraid that with 'Tier restrictions' the game will get repetitive and boring. I remember back when I played the game Navyfield that this was a frequent problem, it took far too long to get to the next type of ship and in doing this I got bored of the game several times. (I liked the game overall, but I don't want another situation like that.) While I hate the HP system in WoWS, I can commend that game for not having the 'Tier restrictions' nearly as much since you get access to all the ship types fairly early and can choose the one that suits you (I'm talking about Destroyers, Cruisers, and Battleships, the Carrier situation is a bit iffy).

 

I get what you and Retry were saying, as well as the potential problems and benefits each side had, it took me like 3 hours (no joke) to write all that stuff just earlier. It's a pretty complicated issue and it's gonna take some time to solve, from Gaijin and the community alike. If the Navyfield situation was really rough then I guess it wouldn't be too bad to have the relatively early versions of each class at an equally early point in the tech tree. It all depends on the tech and performance.

 

2 hours ago, Exo333 said:

I could go into further detail about how I think ships should control, how the crew situation should be handled, etc. but I don't know if this is the place for that so I'll leave it here.

2 hours ago, Exo333 said:

Don't worry you didn't sound rude at all, that's what we're here to find out aren't we? What ways can ships work and which would be the best overall?

 

Appreciate it! If there isn't already something similar to what you have in mind you could try to make a forum post on what your thoughts on the subject is. The more opinions the better!

Edited by *Harbinger2167
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13.10.2016 at 1:10 AM, Mercedes4321 said:

It goes at 8 knots, but then Gaijin says that a major balancing issue is that larger ships are too slow.

 

Too slow?

Let's wait for IJN Shimakaze then! For Gaijin 41kt is enough, I guess...

Shimakaze.jpg

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2016 at 8:10 PM, Mercedes4321 said:

What I find weird is that files have been found for player controlled vehicles like the Artilleriefährprahm D-1:

1920px-Artilleriefaehrprahm_Modell_1.JPG

It goes at 8 knots, but then Gaijin says that a major balancing issue is that larger ships are too slow.

 

Some news about this boat

 

shot%202017_4a695027172942430431c7bcf84c

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Protoboy17 said:

 

Some news about this boat

 

shot%202017_4a695027172942430431c7bcf84c

 

I can't help but look at those life rafts and wonder if they could save even one person at sea (and I'm pretty sure that thing has more than 4 crew)..  did that thing actually have them or Gaijin just modeled them before modeling weapons/people to see the scale?

Or are they actually realistic or not life rafts at all?

Edited by tizianenel
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, tizianenel said:

I can't help but look at those life rafts and wonder if they could save even one person at sea (and I'm pretty sure that thing has more than 4 crew).. 

62 men +3 officers

 

37 minutes ago, tizianenel said:

did that thing actually have them or Gaijin just modeled them before modeling weapons/people to see the scale?

Or are they actually realistic or not life rafts at all?

Seems realistic.

MFP_AF_26_1.jpg

MFP_AF_118_ex_F_917.jpg

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.