knights of the sea Large ship naval battles - User Suggestions

[Heliosiah 4,718]

 

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. 

 

• Quote

  • Scarper:  In summary, this isn't a definitive no, but an invitation to help “Steer” the development so as many of us as possible can get enjoyment out of this unusual game mode, you know it makes sense.

 

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.

1. How to play
2. Mechanics
3. Counting Kills
4. Being Sank
5. Winning
6. Economy
7. Imbalance in Nations
8. 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 
  Spoiler

  -snip-

  ONE: High tier battles consist of what we will essentially label "events", these events consist of very very few numbers of players, for example let's say 5v5, or maybe a 10v10, in order to prevent the " players wouldn't like to wait in the queue" as much as possible, but these are example numbers, basically a X v X Death-Match of two top tier capital juggernauts fighting with smaller support classes, or even possibly a mode including sister ships, 2 capitals per team, from here a number of things could happen. 

  • So how do these vehicles fight then? Either: Capital ships start out opposite each other at 12 nautical miles (the International water mark visible distance), with support class vehicles positioned closer to the center of the field of play. But, this is where we will split upon two possible "a completely different gameplay." Either we maintain this death match variable, where these ships just start a game mode style that I will call Jousting also known as One For All, All For Victory, where both teams just come at each other until one of several things could happen:
    • 1 -Complete Knock out: The aim of this victory is to eliminate everyone on one team except for the capital ship itself. The incapacitate effect of this is that a capital ship by itself against an enemy capital ship with a remaining support fleet has lost. Not only is it now at a disadvantage, it has failed to protect its fleet.
    • 2 -One-Two Punch:  The aim of this victory is to target the capital ship itself. A certain number of points are earned by doing damage to enemy capital ships causing sustained damage for a certain amount of time, even without sinking the capital ship, the smaller ships fight each other, or aim for the capital ship, where they may either use torpedoes, or set fire to the ship itself, even without sinking the ship you could knock it out of battle by disabling its turrets, disabling a flight deck, knocking out its range finding equipment, or causing a list of a significant degree such as a 10 degree listing, preventing air craft from launching or preventing the normal function of a ship such as steering or arc of fire, or anything else that would otherwise cause the ship to be unable to return fire or stay in a fight, much like having only 1 crew member surviving in an otherwise fine tank, or the destruction of the capital ship itself immediately through a catastrophic blow, detonating its magazine or breaking its back. Given the nature of ships, modeling numbers of crew seems unrealistic on this game engine for large ships. 
    • This works in a way because you could technically win a battle without ever sinking a single ship, you could potentially sink nearly all ships, it causes a dynamic that is created by the players themselves, either the capital ships aim at the smaller ships or each other, the smaller ships either aim at each other or focus on aiming on the capital ship. The basis of this game mode being that the capital ships are high tier, larger ships, such as capital ships.

  TWO: Or we go down an objective based approach. Which in my opinion would be the best possible solution. Given the nature of plane battles, tank battles, naval battles themselves are of a nature far too unique to simply place in War Thunder, that is why different game play is your answer. So there's a couple things I'll note before going further: The distance mark beginning on these modes can change. The tier of the vehicles is more flexible in this regard. Either an even spread of ships, eg one Yamato with supporting fleet, or a large number of ships such as the Yamato in the same battle. 

  • This will be a game mode that I will call Elite Battles, also known as No Fail Missions. This will basically consist of a number of objective oriented battles, strongly discouraging the lone wolf style of kill based stetpedding. I will list some ideas, now, a lot of these ideas have a familiar nature, but they are very easy to work with from the perspective of a developer, as you can manipulate them in certain ways to facilitate the style of play you wish to see, and will satisfy players. I am aiming to find a nature of battle that eliminates the issue that is a large ship taking hours to sink. Either by bypassing it, or incapacitating it without sinking it. However, it will still be able to be sunk. 
    • Objective 1 - Elimination: Similar to the first mentioned Jousting game mode, where the objective is to inhibit or incapacitate the enemy fleet. This would work better, because where as the first mention of Jousting would require the presence of a capital ship, this objective could be accomplished using a flotilla of small ships at any tier. This would be more of, but not restricted to-an Arcade battles style of game play, the ships would be spawned at knife point to each other, this game play would be extremely fast paced. This would essentially be a slug-fest of juggernauts guaranteeing that at least some games will involve serious intense gun battles between ships. And at this range the sinking of a ship would come much sooner. 
    • Objective 2 - Destination: Utilizing a force spawned in the center of the battle, Team A protects a fleet attempting to make it from spawn behind them to destination X, on the other side, the Team B must stop this fleet. You can position these fleets in a number of ways. Kind of like how current capturing is in some game modes in ground forces. Or parallel each other, with the objective to one corner, and both teams equal distance from each other and the goal. The best way this might work in the parallel situation would be to position the ships just at, or over visible range, with the fleet attempting safe passage slightly dislodged behind them or at an angle. Large capital ships could also be placed at a slight distance, so as to deny them the ability to simply start firing upon the enemy at range upon spawning, but at an angle that the objective could come within gun-range within minutes. In this manner the Team B can attempt a number of options, either defend against the objective destination, or travel right for the passing fleet, causing Team A to either head right for the objective and establish a blockade, or fall back and encompass their fleet. Causing dynamic game play. Also in this manner, the passing fleet, much like capture the flag, can win simply by holding back the enemy, and passing through, even if no one on either team is sank. Likewise, as the battle develops, players who earn more points could begin to spawn in aircraft and increase the pressure. As battleships close in, also increasing pressure. Lions earned are greater for the winning team, and their activity, so if a member of team A made it to the objective, and they eventually win, but this individually never even landed a hit, they still earn lions, for earning victory for their team. Image below just as an example, I realize that these paragraphs are really long. Please note, here, the passing fleet could potentially be either AI, player controlled, or a combination.
    • Objective 3 - Contested Beach Landing: The goal here is straight forward. Small landing ships, either AI controlled or player controlled, are launched from larger ships at the goal of landing on a beach, or a port, and being able to occupy points. Victory could be obtained by either capturing all the points on the beach, let's say A, B, C, D, E and F, as an example, Victory being defined as successfully establishing a Beachhead in this case. Or, by occupying a point or two, and bypassing the beach, and disabling the enemy HQ located inland, Victory in this case being defined as successfully causing the Dysfunction of the enemy HQ. Here we're focusing on the case of the capital ships, but it is easy to see how aircraft and ground forces could easily be incorporated here. So here, capital ships on Team A, the attacking team, have the objective of bombarding the landing zone, Firing For Effect. Taking out batteries, pillboxes, buildings, and tanks. Providing covering fire for the landing force, through effective fire, and through their on board aaa. There are plenty of things here for players to earn credits and rp on. Enemy ships could contest this landing by suppressing the Team A's capital ships or by preventing the landing force from occupying. It was stated in the OP of this thread itself that aircraft are particularly threatening to these ships. And that is perfectly fine in this game mode, if enemy capital ships are less likely to sink each other, then it will be more important for air craft to prevent not only the landing, but to split their focus to also worry about the capital ships. So even though I have mentioned a lot of ways how these game modes could go on with these ships not having to be sank, they can still be sank.
    • https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/326775-large-ship-naval-battles-some-clarification/&page=49#comment-6389132
    • Objective 4 - Safe Passage: This will be the last thing I mention for now since this has gone on way longer than I thought it would. This is also simple. Imagine the situation that is the German ships the Scharnhorst and the Gneisenau attempting to make safe passage through the English channel to the north. The goal is similar to that of Destination. Except instead of a passage fleet, the goal here is to successfully escort your Capital Ships all the way from one side of a zone, to the other. Remember, the devs could play with this any way. You could design this situation where only one team is given capital ships, attempting safe passage, with or without a support fleet or air cover, against similar, an enemy fleet that lack capital ships, with or without air support, or limited air support. Either the ships are sunk, and they lose, or they make it all the way through, and win, or they defend themselves, taking out all the enemy and win. Victory is obtainable through multiple means.

  -snip-

   

   

• 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:

Quote

often ended with an enemy retreat or not being destroyed.

 

 

 

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.

 

Edited September 4, 2016 by Heliosiah

[RustyEagle 470]

Awesome job im sure this will be appreciated.

[Solid_Snake01 974]

+1

[Heliosiah 4,718]

Gonna go ahead and do some people a favor and post this thing about Gamescom here on the first page:

 

 

[Optical_Ilyushin 5,553]

1 hour ago, Heliosiah said:

Gonna go ahead and do some people a favor and post this thing about Gamescom here on the first page:

 

 

 

 

you are a real darling, please let us know if they give us glorious nippon sensha pls )))

 

also fantastic thread, I will keep posted!

[Nomad_Gaming 6,221]

On 8/12/2016 at 7:48 PM, Nomad_Gaming said:

 

 

 

 

...do ships the same way as a tank. What i mean by this is the following:

 

let us not forget that there is already a hp system in game already in the form of module and crew health (crew being merely another module)

 

Most naval ships have some form of armor, with some exceptions like the PT-109, which is made of wood. What you can do is create a series of modules around the ship. So, on the outer layer of the armor viewer you have your basic armor thickness. For instance, on the USS Sterett, a Benham class destroyer, the armor was just six millimeters. Behind that, at points on the ship, you have your modules: engines, steering, drive shafts, magazines, turret rings, and so on. For certain sections, you have crew modules, whose HP can be set by taking the "crew" of a ship and dividing it proportionally, where 1hp = 1 crewman. In addition, at or below the "waterline of the ship, in a rough outline of the ship, you would have your "watertight bulkheads" as each of these was reduced to, say, 50% integrity or below, the ship would get a progressive flooding timer. If too many of these modules were damaged, the ship would begin to list (but still be mildly combat capable).

 

This could be slowed, stopped, or even reversed with a damage control consumable that would allow you to repair up to [insert number here] bulkheads.If, of course, too many are damaged too quickly, your ship rolls and begins sinking in the direction that has the most damage, which would be unrecoverable but relatively quick. Otherwise, ships could be destroyed by reducing crew or taking out enough modules such that the ship is rendered "combat incapable." For instance, taking out the bridge, taking out all of the primary and secondary armaments, destroying the boilers beyond a certain point, and so on. It's not too difficult given the mechanics already in game. You basically create a "tank" that floats on water in the shape of [insert ship here].

 

This would also allow for successful use of torpedoes, which would simply be a very large shell explosion that would be able to very quickly cripple large amounts of "bulkhead" modules and crew modules, but would of course come with the risk of having to accurately predict the range and motion of an opposing ship.

 

 

I agree with you. It is unbalanced; the PT-109, which has no armor, will need to close within a kilometer of the Project 1124 and be traveling perpendicular to said target for its 20mm cannon to be effective, and this is without knowing what kind of armor the 1124 has. Meanwhile, the 1124 can happily saturate an area with MG fire, cannon shells, or rocket, all of which will be lethal to the PT-109. The only buffer against the 1124 is that the PT-109 is capable of a much higher rate of fire, and the T-34 turret will be heavily affected by sea conditions and ship-roll. A PT-109 will effectively have to launch one of its four torpedoes, and then herd the 1124 into the path of its torpedo with its 20mm gun, assuming that the MGs are relatively ineffective at range.

 

My own post from the clarification section.

Edited August 17, 2016 by Nomad_Gaming

[ZeleznyFenix 504]

There is only one way how to have big ships: PvE (maybe 10, max. 15 players ) and + in PvE even singlpayer. 

Edited August 17, 2016 by ZeleznyFenix

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,756]

We can add all of others ships:

 

Carriers are an exception: the gameplay for a carrier is not very intensive,... so just get an IA Carrier from we take off,

and in RB/SB only limit the Airforces to Naval Aircrafts, and light bombers or loadouts (under 3500kg bombs, for exemple) (to get some reality about naval fights)

 

in AB

Spoiler

we can have a choice of how many spawn we can have. this is a choice between:

- 1 BB's

- 1 Cruiser + 1 Patrol Boat

- 2 DD's

- 1 DD's + 3 Patrol Boat

- 5/6 Patrol Boat

in RB/SB

Spoiler

1) the Present Spawn System could be upgraded for ships: (Kind of Ships : 1st Spawn cost (in SP) / 2nd / 3rd / 4th / 5th) (

BB's : Disabled / 900 / 1200 / 1600 / 2000

Cruiser : 400 SP / 650 / 1000 / 1350 / 1700

DD's : 250 SP / 400 / 800 / 1100 / 1400

Patrol Boat : 100 SP / 250 / 550 / 900 / 1000

Planes: - Fighters : Disabled / 400 / 680 / 950 / 1200

             - Bombers : Disabled / 550 / 750 / 1000 / 1250

 

we can't use a BB's in first spawn, because they're too heavy, and we have to let some possibilty for Patrol Boats Players

and Plane are disbabled in 1st spawn too, like in RB GF.

 

or, 

2) Upgrade the MM to create a limit of any kind of ships, with these Max.limits (Per Teams) for "7vs7 and more":

1 BB's

2 Cruisers

4 DD's

the rest is completed by Patrol boats players

 

"6vs6 and less":

1 Cruiser 

2 DD's

the rest is completed by Patrol boats player

 

Edited August 17, 2016 by Cpt_Bel_V

[the_suztown 2,508]

Brilliantly compiled and very well said, I do hope when it is needed this thread is used!

[Joeythesheep 135]

my only problem is when a ship is going to be classed as knocked out, since the Yuudachi continued a battle without boilers, and the a documentary said that HMS Hood fired while sinking, so the question is how severe does the damage have to be?

[Estorm732 1,499]

49 minutes ago, Joeythesheep said:

my only problem is when a ship is going to be classed as knocked out, since the Yuudachi continued a battle without boilers, and the a documentary said that HMS Hood fired while sinking, so the question is how severe does the damage have to be?

 

I'd say knockout would be based on the number or percent of modules disabled. If a ship has x number of modules, when y number of them are disabled the ship is judged combat ineffective and crew abandons ship, scuttling it.

 

[WhaleofaLord 38]

  Very well said! Thank you for this; this makes me feel much more confident that large naval ships will eventually be added into War Thunder.

 

  It's nice to hear these well thought out ideas, rather than people spewing hate and frustration out at Gaijin. I for one think that Carriers should stay AI controlled, that way the squadrons they release won't be too powerful since they cannot be upgraded or controlled by players, and  so that players can spawn their planes on them. Seriously, I know that people want War Thunder Naval to be like "the other game", but the idea of a person controlling a huge ship, as well as multiple squadrons of multiple planes while other players only control one vehicle is a little ridiculous. I also think that the idea of BBs having an AI screening force of DDs with them is an interesting one.

 

  Anyways, thanks again, and hopefully Gaijin will use these ideas to help them make big naval ships in the game.

[Iprinz 737]

@Heliosiah

 

I think even more simplification is needed, although this topic is excellent.

 

It would be fruitful to organize the data in two main groups, before dividing into the aforementioned subgroups.

 

What is related to gameplay-

How to play?

Mechanics

Being Sank.- Being sank already falls under mechanics I believe, 

What is related to development-

Economy

Imbalance in Nations

Specialty- I'm not quite sure what you mean by specialty, I will assume you mean the roles each ship class has to fulfill.

Counting Kills.- I believe this also falls under economy.

 

 

Although, I think if you wanted anymore suggestions I could be of help reformatting the OP.

[Heliosiah 4,718]

2 hours ago, Iprinz said:

@Heliosiah

 

-snip-

 

Well in terms of kills, winning, and being sank, these are all categories which are affected under multiple aforementioned game meta criteria, being that they are matters which fall under economy, and mechanics, meaning, how does one be sank (mechanics), how does this affect winning the game(game play), how do you define a kill as it is relevant to both (mechanics) and (game play), do you count a kill before or after being sank for example, how do you provide credits to people who damage and or sink a ship(economy), etc. Not only that, but the quality, and type of how mechanics work, will affect game play, game play itself affects how you need to reward players, etc. Meaning that they as a whole affect each other. 

 

So those criteria are mentioned in multiple branches of several chapters, I dedicated it to its own branch in terms of it being discernible by itself, like an index. Due to the nature of defining the meta of game play and mechanics themselves being quite complex on their own, being that they are affected by all of the other latter mentioned categories, in order to understand each issue independently I extracted those relevant 'pieces' of information and reiterated them for clarity of point. 

 

 

 

In regards to specialty, as stated in the OP, this forum post is in direct-relation to a post made by Gaijin Administration, -  https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/326775-large-ship-naval-battles-some-clarification/

 

Specialty being the unique nature of these classes of vehicles, such as the Yamato. Their concern being that; in the case of a historical scenario, or a game battle with the concern of remaining historically accurate, a match in which 10 people queued up in the Yamato would either be 1, awkward, or 2, you limit the match so that only a limited number of these special nature vehicles can be in a match, such as a limited number of bombers in a match, to preserve the quality of the battle preventing battles in a game where there's 2 fighters and 12 bombers, would leave the queue times unreasonably long.

 

Although I am going to rearrange a few of the branches.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 19, 2016 by Heliosiah

[PrincessPudding 217]

well, i actually think adding playercontrolled carriers would be nice with having a complete different gameplay.

i would suggest they have keys from 1 to 4:

1: fighters

2: torpedo-bombers

3: dive-bombers

4. recons

 

after you have chosen your aircraft type, you chose your squadron and tell them where to to cover, where to clear up or where to bomb and torp enemy ships. you will have access to your aicrafts through radio. the areas are like the "artillery-strike" zones and you could set them more far away and they will grow in radius while you level your carriers and your crews. you could tell them to move on to a different area or patrol between them. you can set the numbers of each category by your own, recons would be the only one who could be set to 0 (japan navy relied on the recons sent from light/heavy cruisers, battleships or land-based) and every other class needs to have a lower limit you couldn´t pass. the thrill behind playing the carrier is here to help your teammates with air-superiority, hitting other ships or help spotting the enemies through recons which will give you actually an assist and some rb and sl for just spotting them. when a carrier lost all his operational aircrafts its "destroyed" coz it coudln´t fight anymore. you can also tell your aircrafts to fly back manually for saving their lives, rearm and repair. researching the carrier should include some upgrades on used aircrafts, radios used, flightdeck upgrades aswell reorganisations inside the hangars to arm more aircrafts inside them.

 

the thrill behind playing the carrier should be the micromanagement behind it to keep your squadrons running and to hide yourself good enough for not getting spotted and taken out fast through torpedos or incoming battleship-shells.

[thedennisinator 1,398]

Posted this before, but I'm going to post it again. The redditor sharpee05 made a fantastic analysis of large ship speeds and gun ranges and determined that large ship combat using only realistic speeds and gun ranges is entirely plausible. Here is his analysis:

 https://imgur.com/gallery/NOiGQ

 

Considering that hitting anything at maximum range is unlikely, spawning ships even closer than he suggested would only help.

[Heliosiah 4,718]

2 hours ago, thedennisinator said:

Posted this before, but I'm going to post it again. The redditor sharpee05 made a fantastic analysis of large ship speeds and gun ranges and determined that large ship combat using only realistic speeds and gun ranges is entirely plausible. Here is his analysis:

 https://imgur.com/gallery/NOiGQ

 

Considering that hitting anything at maximum range is unlikely, spawning ships even closer than he suggested would only help.

Ye! That link is already in the op tho :p 

[thedennisinator 1,398]

1 hour ago, Heliosiah said:

Ye! That link is already in the op tho :p 

Oops, missed that.

[Heliosiah 4,718]

6 hours ago, thedennisinator said:

Oops, missed that.

No no, all the goods are welcome goods ^_^

[Pappina 1,791]

This seems like good thread, although I I personally think that for AB and RB, the battles should take place well within most ship's gun range. It may not particularly realistic but, I feel that sacrificing the extremely large engagements distances for the sake of gameplay in those modes. Would that mean it could be possible for a battleship or even heavy cruiser yo camp at their spawn and shoot at people at the back of  map? Maybe, but, they would have to be a good shot to land any lethal blows from that type of range, and of course they themselves are easy prey for an enemy battle ship or a sneaky destroyer/ cruiser/PT boat. Never ind that they could pay very dearly for sitting at the back of the map and not helping their team aside from an occassional slavo from the big guns.

[brenden804 17]

On 8/17/2016 at 7:52 AM, brenden804 said:

 6 Cruisers and Destroyers vs. 18 or so smaller more nimble boats (i.e. PT Boats)? Main objective for the large ships is to attack an AI shipping fleet while the smaller boats are dispatched to intercept them before they can kill the shipping fleet. Would work with both theaters of combat for the Sim Battles players. PT Boats spawn a decent distance in front of the AI fleet (dependent on speed to make combat  before the large ships are in range viable), the larger ships spawn out of the range of their guns/torpedoes. This gives an objective that prevents camping/hiding on both sides. If the ships try to hide than the shipping fleet will reach the safety of the harbor, and if the boats hide then the ships will kill the fleet. This also gives an objective for the cruisers main and secondary batteries. The larger guns of course would be extremely effective against the boats but the heightened in-accuracy compared to the smaller caliber defense guns would make them less viable. This also combats the realistic nature of the ships taking forever to sink, because if your engine/propeller gets knocked out then you are out of range of the ships and would not be able to engage. Same with the guns as well, it could be possible knock a turret out of commission which would make the ships job a lot harder. It doesn't  have to completely rely on sinking the ship. Even a hit that creates listing in the ship would make it harder to stay on course buying the AI fleet more time to reach safety. With that in mind that doesn't mean that a ship shouldn't be able to sink in that time frame either. I think almost every player would love to see the sight of a magazine detonation in game. (At least I know I would.) All in all with testing I believe the numbers (time it takes the AI fleet to get to safety/ amount of AI ships/ amount of player controlled ships on both sides) could be refined into an enjoyable game mode for both the players who like the smaller nimble boats, and the players like me who really would enjoy the larger ships.

[Iprinz 737]

Having seen the new gameplay, you need to finish this quickly, because Gaijin clearly drew a blank with regards to fun gameplay and tactics.

 

Seriously, there doesn't look to be a whole lot of places they can go with Tanks of the Sea, so if there is anyway we can assist please ask.

 

My guess is they'll need these ideas when open beta comes out and everyone stops playing tanks 2.0 aka SPAAs on the high seas after about two weeks.

[the_suztown 2,508]

1 hour ago, Iprinz said:

Having seen the new gameplay, you need to finish this quickly, because Gaijin clearly drew a blank with regards to fun gameplay and tactics.

 

Seriously, there doesn't look to be a whole lot of places they can go with Tanks of the Sea, so if there is anyway we can assist please ask.

 

My guess is they'll need these ideas when open beta comes out and everyone stops playing tanks 2.0 aka SPAAs on the high seas after about two weeks.

Exactly, the rapid fire event is fun for about 10-20 minutes before its quite stale, imagine having a whole tech tree of it.

[sgtlongbow 1,936]

On 8/18/2016 at 6:42 AM, Estorm732 said:

 

I'd say knockout would be based on the number or percent of modules disabled. If a ship has x number of modules, when y number of them are disabled the ship is judged combat ineffective and crew abandons ship, scuttling it.

 

yes and no. if the ship is unable to do anything then there is no issue it just a choice for the player to scuttle or be killed. if the ship takes on water it would be considered killed when it reaches a pre set level or listing but may allow player to continue to fire. In case of a fire the ship would be alive till it explodes or fire has killed all crew. if all crew or pre set % of crew is killed then the ship would be considered dead as they would not be able to operate it.

 

i would so suggest the lager the ship is the more gaijin should just use a single human silhouette to represent  a set amount or % of crew in that area or compartment.

 

gaijin is going to have to change the amount of detail they put into large ships or they will never get done and may cost to much to make, so short cuts are essential.

[_Ironclad_ 124]

About planes and big ships AAA- it shold be done like in Battlestations or like in War Thunder single missions- if you fly TBF torpedo bomber, you start with 3-4 planes- player controled leader an 2 or 3 AI "wingmans" in case of leader shootdown, player could be transfered to one of "wingman" and pilot it. Check it in single mission;).

For CV /plane- for me- if you want to fly TBF or B5N "Kate" , you need to reasearch proper carrier from tree, select loadout, and start combined fleet-air battle (no tanks! in any mode with navy, just drop that idea...). then player spawn in CV choose destionation and start a squadron- like in Battlestations series. That was uber great to be able control CV and air.