knights of the sea Large ship naval battles - User Suggestions

[Balance_Enjoyer 72]

On 18.8.2016 at 11:48 AM, 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?

 

That should not be a problem because Gaijin has already figured this out with the "small" boats --- as seen on the gamescom presentation. They handle it with a Buoyancy mechanic + the usualy modules.

[DoLhades 361]

Here's an idea:

 

What if you could actually research larger ships, but are not able to access them except in certain modes (Say, events and custom battles) by default.

 

However in game, you still get the option to 'pick' them persay. With the option of a Cruiser, Battlecruiser, Battlecarrier, Battleship or Carrier, my idea is to implement a similar style to Ground Forces in the calling in of larger ships.

 

As per, they research as they are used. However, if you have earned x number of kills, you can make a capital ship call in. For example, a British player with enough points earned, might call in a King George V class under THEIR control. Upon doing so, your previously controlled boat becomes AI controlled and will still earn you Silver and RP at a reduced amount. The only problem with calling in a capital ship, is it is considered an objective point, losing it causes the team to lose a high number of objective points. In this sense, it makes it important to keep up to date not just with your small boats, but capital classes as well. I feel that each time a call in is made, the points required to call another one in should increase for every player on that team.

 

In this sense, we can see a truly mixed battle, with the game shifting from smaller boats, to certain larger boats being called in as things become more intense.

[WhaleofaLord 38]

  When Naval Battles was first announced, people that were waiting for the game mode were confused and frustrated by the fact that they were only going to be getting PT Boats, and the lack of information given about them. Now, however, we have some idea of how these battles look, with the demonstration at the con. There are just a few things that I want to get across to fellow players and Gaijin.

 

 

1. The Small Boats

 

          1:1. Speed: The gameplay of these small boats are, at the moment, fast. VERY fast. They spawn in, rush at each other, then shoot until one of them sinks. Right now the Naval gameplay is faster than planes and tanks. It's just in alpha though, and when(if) the respawns get spaced out, it won't be as bad.

 

          1:2. Armament: Now, one thing that I have seen people complain about is the "point and click" style of fighting that the boats use. People want their guns to have slower reload or firing speed, so they get rewarded for good accuracy and punished for half-hazard aiming. The problem with this is that realistically these are the weapons that the boats used, and Gaijin can't just change that. This would go against one of their best selling points. Then there are the torpedoes. Torps were not used historically against other small boats, this just didn't happen. The current state of Naval Battles makes torps very redundant. 

 

          1:3. Realism: Throughout WWII history, PT-type boats were used to harass supply routes and cheaply take out large capital ships. However, how often did they fight against each other? The only time I can think of at the top of my head was during D-Day, when American PTs were used to block out the German E-Boats from the transports. PT boats were small, which reduced their operating range. They were mostly used for shore defense, so they didn't really come in contact with others of their type. But this is how War Thunder envisions it's Naval Battles. They probably shouldn't go for this unrealistic approach.

 

          1:4. High Tiers: One reason that does make sense for Gaijin to use PTs is when players get to higher tiers. If their were BBs and CL/CAs in the game, their tech trees at rank 5 would still consist of ships from WWII. PTs, however would get vehicles from the Korean War as well. Nations were still recovering from WWII, and the cheapest way to defend their shores were PTs. Players cannot ignore that this time period is also represented in this game.

 

          1:5. Russian Bias: Some players are very frustrated about the apparent Russian biased answer that Gaijin gave us. They said that one of the reasons they are against capital ships is that the USSR wouldn't get very good ones. Players countered with the fact that Japan has not gotten tanks, and that the USSR actually has SOME decent naval power. Now, Gaijin is going to be adding Japanese tanks into the game, so this is not a valid argument. And although the USSR does have a little bit of naval power, it's not really enough to make a full tech tree out of. Do I think that capital ships should not be added into the game because of these reasons? No, I'm sure Gaijin could suck it up and work around these problems, but their arguments aren't COMPELTELY biased, either.

 

 

2. The Large Ships 

 

  So, the idea to start with small boats was a good idea. For Gaijin to go through all the work of modelling and fleshing out big ships for every nation, extending the date of the CBT, just to have it's players say that the gameplay is boring was probably a recurring nightmare for them. However, if what they say about ONLY making small boats is true, then they are making a huge mistake. Watching the demonstration shown at the con made me realize how much potential the naval mechanics have to include big ships. A lot of the problems that the PTs had could be remedied with the inclusion of them. They are also greatly underestimated how many players want big ships in this game; it's probably close to 1/3 of the player base. I would say that's a large enough amount to care about. However, another thing Gaijin doesn't seem to understand is that this 1/3 percent is a very fickle group, and if they don't want to lose them, they are going to have to do something. Soon. I'm not going to talk about how Gaijin could make large ships, as their is already an amazing topic done by Heliosiah called "Large ship naval battles - User Suggestions" that talks about his. I'm just going to mention what they need to do in the immediate future to keep this 1/3 of the player base.

 

          2:1. Option One, Let The Players Try It For Themselves: Many players are upset at the accusation Gaijin made that they will think large ships are boring. Gaijin said that they did internal testing, and it showed that large ship gameplay is boring. Whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Players are still going to want to try it for themselves. And I honestly think Gaijin should let us decide for ourselves. All they would have to do is add, like, two ships: one DD/CL and one BB. This way Gaijin doesn't have to do too much work, and we can still test the important stuff, regardless of nations. However, the best environment to let us do that in is the CBT. That way it's only a small player base, so not too many people will get attached to large ships and then freak out if testing shows them to be less than ideal and Gaijin removes them. If they wait until the OBT, then it might prove a little more problematic.

 

          2:2. Option Two, Show The Players The Internal Testing: I'm sure some players would not be so upset about the decision to not at large ships if they saw for themselves the internal testing Gaijin did. I mean, seriously, what ships, environment, and game mode did you use to test them? This option might not satisfy all the players, but it will at least give an idea of how to fix big ships or if they should be added into the game at all.

 

 

3. Conclusion  

 

  Well, that's all I have to say about the current state of War Thunder Naval Battles. I hope that Gaijin reads this and uses it to help guide their decisions. Their are a lot of players that have stuck with this game just for this moment. And to have that taken away is pretty upsetting. We, well, at least I play War Thunder over the "other game" because I want realistic naval battles. This is the only game that can do that, and I hope Gaijin realizes that and gives us the awesome realistic naval game mode we have been waiting for. And to all you other players reading this, I will see you in the Naval CBT!

 

               

              

 

 

[brenden804 17]

 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.

[foxtrot_1 13]

Wow, great posts.  I am now solidly convinced player controlled large ships are an absolutely critical addition for the naval trees.  

Edited August 23, 2016 by foxtrot_1

[Scarper 45,512]

21 hours ago, WhaleofaLord said:

         1:3. Realism: Throughout WWII history, PT-type boats were used to harass supply routes and cheaply take out large capital ships. However, how often did they fight against each other? The only time I can think of at the top of my head was during D-Day, when American PTs were used to block out the German E-Boats from the transports. PT boats were small, which reduced their operating range. They were mostly used for shore defense, so they didn't really come in contact with others of their type. But this is how War Thunder envisions it's Naval Battles. They probably shouldn't go for this unrealistic approach.

 

Just picking up on this one, small vessel combat occurred on many many occasions in the English channel and the North sea, the Fairmile being introduced to specifically combat the E boat threat.

Quote

E boats had been busy off the English coast one night on the 10th of September 1942 and three 70 foot MGBs, led by Lt. Horn; DSC, RN, had intercepted one of the E Boat groups as it retreated. A lengthy battle followed as the MGBs pursued the E boats eastwards across the North Sea. By now it was getting light, and action damage had slowed up Horn’s gunboats, so that the quarry had been lost. The point at which they were about to make contact was evidently a rendezvous for the E boats and two additional German groups had joined their comrades. In daylight, the British boats sighted the enemy reckoning the odds were nine Scnellboots versus four British Fairmiles. Battle commenced once more and one of the British craft was hit in the engine room, it was immobilized and burning. Two more British boats were hit, although the enemy also appeared to have suffered major hits. A further group of E boats had now joined in the action, as about twelve of them were formed in a semicircle round the disabled MGB which was still firing back towards the Germans, the enemy remained four or five hundred yards away, but casualties were mounting. it was at this stage that one of the Allied boats decided to make a rescue bid. Under fire from twelve E boats at no more than 500 yards range in broad daylight, the boat came alongside the burning immobilized boat and took off most of the survivors - a couple of the crew being trapped behind fire in the wireless room. Thorpe, the commander of the rescuing craft, was awarded the DSO.for his boats gallant efforts.

 

 

 

[WhaleofaLord 38]

  A lot of people (including me) have had ideas on how to add aircraft into naval battles, such as: spawning on the boarder of the map or on airstrips for land-based planes, spawning on AI or player-controlled(preferably not) aircraft carriers for naval planes, and spawning on friendly cruisers or battleships for scout floatplanes (my idea (I think...)). But Gaijin also really wants to add tanks into the mix, so I recently had an idea for that. Previously it was stated that a beachhead landing game mode would work, and the defending team could spawn tanks at their base. This would work, but what about the attacking team? I think that it would be awesome if players could control a landing craft, and in the armament screen before they take it out decide what tank they want on it. Then they sail it toward the beach, supported by their friendly capitol ships, and land them. Their boat will then, depending on the game mode, act as a tank respawn for that player. If an enemy manages to destroy the craft before the craft's player has used all of their respawns, then the player has to spawn the landing craft and repeat the procedure again. This would be fun and dynamic in my opinion.

[Iprinz 737]

How about battles being more theatre specific, because the only time german and Russian planes should ever factor in is A: arcade and B: when there are large landmasses that planes could plausibly be based from.

 

This means Russia vs. Germany is pretty limited in regards to combined arms, because they can only really operate as a littoral force if we want to be able to rearm our planes. (And we do).

 

BTW: Escort carriers need to make an appearance, convoy babysitting scenarios, battle off Samar, Philippine sea.

[tizianenel 2,124]

On ‎23‎.‎8‎.‎2016 at 5:29 PM, Scarper said:

 

Just picking up on this one, small vessel combat occurred on many many occasions in the English channel and the North sea, the Fairmile being introduced to specifically combat the E boat threat.

 

 

There's an (slightly) extended version of the story you quoted over at http://www.39-45war.com/mgb.html

 

And to me it sounds like the battle took quite a long time (at the very least from night to broad daylight)...  and even then, with 9-12 E boats attacking in a semicircle from 400-500 yard range, another Fairmile could stop by for 7 minutes and rescue most of the crew from the burning boat. If this is the realistic portrayal of Fairmile vs E boat, then the gameplay we saw had boats destroyed and sinking far too quickly.

Edited August 25, 2016 by tizianenel

[the_suztown 2,508]

20 hours ago, the_suztown said:

Right I had an Idea about how to handle the huge crews, instead of rending every single crew member only render the crew doing things (IE bridge crew, gunnery crew and engine crew + officers) and have "zones" where the rest of the crew will be residing, when one of there rendered crew is knocked out, someone from the reserves will replace them (after a small cool down) and if the "crew zones" get hit by enemy fire then you'll loose a set amount of crew depending on the kind of hit, what hit it and so forth. While I'm sure some people will think this as a sort of HP its just a small Idea i had while buying groceries heh. It could ease some of the devs worries on how to implement so many crew.  

Repost ^^

The ideas for including planes all sound pretty good to me!

[Querulous1 3,276]

Just trying out pt boats in some of the AB air maps in pacific would be fun.Somewhere to start anyway.

[Heliosiah 4,718]

7 Edit 2's have been added since the original post has been made.

 

As well as further condensing of topics regarding sinking and winning, which is now chapter 2, the previous chapter 2 is now simply chapter 3. 

 

 

As of Aug 28th 16, 1,786 replies have been made to the original topic of discussion. 

Edited August 29, 2016 by Heliosiah

[twoand900 593]

I thought of a way carriers could work without adding "new" game mechanics.

 

Instead of the pseudo RTS that WoWs uses, why not have have the player or AI control everything!

 

here is a picture of how it could work (ft. my bada** MS Paint skillz)

 

 

just like changing ammo type or repairing in GF there could certain actions binded to a key, for example what is shown in the picture

 

(1)(2) Send out a squad of planes

• Was thinking allowing so only one squad of fighters and bombers out at a time i.e. one squad of bombers and one squad of fighters
• a squad could consist of 6 planes

(3) Direct planes

• using the artillery map from GF tell your planes ware to go
• should probably have one for each fighters and bombers

(4)(5) Call back planes

• have your planes come back to you and land
• I have heard that AI planes cant land on carriers, that shouldn't too much of a hurdle to get over, we could just have it "force" the planes down if need be

(6)(7) control planes

• take control of you squad of bombers or fighters
• kinda like when you call in air support in AB GF (no time limit)
• your ship will defend its self but not move unless told so

But how do i control my carrier if im in a plane? it would be relatively similar I made a picture for that to

 

 

(1)(2) control Bombers/Carrier

• switch to bomber squad or carrier

(4)(5) Direct Bombers/Carrier

• like Direct planes but one for your carrier

(6) Land Bombers

• tell your bomber squad to return to the carrier

(bomber controls would be the same, just replace "bombers" with "fighters" and you got it)

(wares 3? ask Gabe Newell)

 

-AI

What will "units" be doing when I'm not controlling them?

 

your carrier will be sitting still unless told to go some ware

• if an enemy in near by, you will get a message saying "an enemy is near you carrier!" - your carrier will stand still
• if their in range, your carrier will fire at them, you will get a corresponding message
• If your carrier is hit a message will say so
• over all your carrier wont be doing much when you are not there

 

Fighters will support bombers and engage enemy fighters (I assume that was there roll in real life but I don't know)

• If enemy fighters/bombers are near they will engage
• if they are near your bombers, they will support them (fly near them, harass AA of what there bombing)
• you should get a message of whats going on with them, a damage report like with the carrier but also a action report e.g. "your fighters have engaged enemy fighters/bombers" "your fighters are supporting your bombers" so on and so forth
• when there is nothing around they will just fly in a circle

Bombers will bomb things (supersizing!)

• like fighters they will bomb the closest thing to them (weather its a base or a ship)
• after the majority of them have dropped there payload they will return to the carrier unless told otherwise
• as with fighters and the carrier, you should get reports on just about everything thats happening with them
• when there is nothing around they will just fly in a circle

When going from a to b (planes and carrier) the AI should make a beeline to it, its not the AIs job to think, its yours.

The AI doesn't need to be able to beat Garry Kasparov in chess they just need to carry out simple tasks. This is area that asks for the most innovation and its not much the devs put floating tanks in a airplane game! I'm sure they can handed something like this

 

What is a squad and who will they work?

•  I was thinking there should be 6 planes in a squad, felt that was good amount, not to weak but not overly annoying.
• the squad stuff is all ready in the game (for the most part), go play some of the single player

 

Non-carrier player controlled planes (Russia)

There should still be player controlled planes that are not carrier players. Russia and Germany are not vary abundant in the carrier department but they should still have an air force in Navel battles. Therefore individual aircraft will be flying around but they don't get a cool squad to fly with (maybe), they should also be able to land on a carrier to repair (if the pilot can)

 

Overall its just an idea, probable full of holes and spelling errors and I doubt we will get big ships anyway but this would be cool and I'm tired of seeing one sneaky bomber kill all 4 carriers on Saipan.

[KaleKonj 693]

It would be nice if we could also have some control of the aircraft flight paths(to plot entire raid from the take off to the target and landing,height,to set up a widnes of the patrol aircraft circle,etc.I came up with an idea of setting up ways of attack for bombers (steep dive,gliding attack,level flight for the ones with a bombsight).We should also have a option to choose how many planes we want to send,balanced by the length of the time it takes to load them and fill them with fuel that increases with the number of them.Also,at the start of the mission,every carier should have a small flight ( 4 for the escort carriers and 8 for the large ones) combat ready fighters and 2 scouts.

[twoand900 593]

13 hours ago, KaleKonj said:

It would be nice if we could also have some control of the aircraft flight paths(to plot entire raid from the take off to the target and landing,height,to set up a widnes of the patrol aircraft circle,etc.I came up with an idea of setting up ways of attack for bombers (steep dive,gliding attack,level flight for the ones with a bombsight).We should also have a option to choose how many planes we want to send,balanced by the length of the time it takes to load them and fill them with fuel that increases with the number of them.Also,at the start of the mission,every carier should have a small flight ( 4 for the escort carriers and 8 for the large ones) combat ready fighters and 2 scouts.

 

I would like to see more complex controls then what I suggested but I made my proposal 'simple' for ease of access (don't want to confuse non-RTS players) and ease of implementation. Perhaps in later updates, more complex commands could be added but to start out, things should be 'simple' (in my opinion)

[Heliosiah 4,718]

I actually like some of those ideas about the carrier. 

 

The idea I really like I didn't think about is controlling your carrier while you fly your plane. I was stuck in the idea that you had to stay at your ship, control it and send out fighters. But that is a good fix for carriers + players. 

[SeraphsWrath 126]

There's still one major problem, however: The addition of large battleships with sky-rending levels of AAA. The USS Iowa (BB-61), for example, got 149 AA guns of various calibers, all tied to a very sophisticated anti-air RADAR FCS. Even if we don't allow player control of AAA (which is one of my biggest axes to grind with WoWS), the Ai... well, if you through enough stuff at a wall, some of it will stick. In the same way, if there are enough shells in the air, some of them will hit (see: Russian Kashtan CIWS, M163 VADS, Shilka SPAA).

 

My fear is that, as soon as ships come live and aircraft players start to watch their wings ripped off from miles out with nothing that they can do about it, the entire Aviation subsection will become a "BB AA OP PLZ NERF!!!" whine thread.

 

Any thoughts on how to fix this (and don't say get rid of the AA or make it inaccurate)?

Edited September 21, 2016 by SeraphsWrath
compulsively fixing my own grammar

[twoand900 593]

47 minutes ago, SeraphsWrath said:

There's still one major problem, however: The addition of large battleships with sky-rending levels of AAA. The USS Iowa (BB-61), for example, got 149 AA guns of various calibers, all tied to a very sophisticated anti-air RADAR FCS. Even if we don't allow player control of AAA (which is one of my biggest axes to grind with WoWS), the Ai... well, if you through enough stuff at a wall, some of it will stick. In the same way, if there are enough shells in the air, some of them will hit (see: Russian Kashtan CIWS, M163 VADS, Shilka SPAA).

 

My fear is that, as soon as ships come live and aircraft players start to watch their wings ripped off from miles out with nothing that they can do about it, the entire Aviation subsection will become a "BB AA OP PLZ NERF!!!" whine thread.

 

Any thoughts on how to fix this (and don't say get rid of the AA or make it inaccurate)?

 

I don't think it will be much of a problem, if people don't want to engage ships with lots of AA normal air battles will still be there also the game mode should focus on ships so aircraft should have a miner role. USS Iowa will be a top tier and most likely see very fast jets; perhaps its still OP but its less OP

[SeraphsWrath 126]

1 hour ago, twoand900 said:

 

I don't think it will be much of a problem, if people don't want to engage ships with lots of AA normal air battles will still be there also the game mode should focus on ships so aircraft should have a miner role. USS Iowa will be a top tier and most likely see very fast jets; perhaps its still OP but its less OP

I think you're missing the point of WT: Combined arms. For years, the whole WT thing was all of the forces in one game. Aircraft are supposed to have a big role, but, when all of the ships have, say, 149 AA guns each pointed at you, things get difficult. Even torp-bombing the Ai is almost pointless right now.

[twoand900 593]

1 hour ago, SeraphsWrath said:

I think you're missing the point of WT: Combined arms. For years, the whole WT thing was all of the forces in one game. Aircraft are supposed to have a big role, but, when all of the ships have, say, 149 AA guns each pointed at you, things get difficult. Even torp-bombing the Ai is almost pointless right now.

 

I didn't say aircraft would be useless, their role would be more of support or harassment or whatever, taking out ships will be done mostly be ships (not to say they wont ever take out ships) also they should fly with a squad of 5 or so AI planes

[Heliosiah 4,718]

Well in my opinion if ship aaa get's so intense once you reach high tiers, then that's just how it'll have to be. At that point the game dynamic changes. 

 

Lower tier pz 38t gameplay is vastly different from tier 5 with now atgm's. Just as an example. And if we look at this new patch of spaa in game, you can see how the meta has already begun to change. 

 

If the Iowa's aaa is so intense, then you'll either have to prioritize expending fighters to defend your capital ships from enemy air if your capital ships have weaker aaa than the enemy, or, prioritize the incapacitation of enemy ship functions, such as disabling effective aaa mounts, through direct shell impact, or secondary fire, etc. 

 

But that's just my initial thought. 

[Estorm732 1,499]

8 hours ago, SeraphsWrath said:

There's still one major problem, however: The addition of large battleships with sky-rending levels of AAA. The USS Iowa (BB-61), for example, got 149 AA guns of various calibers, all tied to a very sophisticated anti-air RADAR FCS. Even if we don't allow player control of AAA (which is one of my biggest axes to grind with WoWS), the Ai... well, if you through enough stuff at a wall, some of it will stick. In the same way, if there are enough shells in the air, some of them will hit (see: Russian Kashtan CIWS, M163 VADS, Shilka SPAA).

 

My fear is that, as soon as ships come live and aircraft players start to watch their wings ripped off from miles out with nothing that they can do about it, the entire Aviation subsection will become a "BB AA OP PLZ NERF!!!" whine thread.

 

Any thoughts on how to fix this (and don't say get rid of the AA or make it inaccurate)?

 

That would force the player in the plane to bomb from a high altitude or drop torpedoes from a distance, which will be a balancing factor for the limited manuevering capabilities of large vessels. Remember the "war in mid air" event from SUMMER for example. SPAAs versus dive bombers, and if the bombers didn't want to lose their plane instantly, they had to keep their distance (Below 2km was not a safe distance from what I experienced) and dropping bombs from that altitude both made it harder to aim and let the target move out of the way. That's how I imagine ships vs planes will work. That wall of AAA is what keeps the capitals from being sitting ducks, and judging by GF AA, it's not easy to shoot a plane at or over 2kms either. 

[Iprinz 737]

20 hours ago, SeraphsWrath said:

I think you're missing the point of WT: Combined arms. For years, the whole WT thing was all of the forces in one game. Aircraft are supposed to have a big role, but, when all of the ships have, say, 149 AA guns each pointed at you, things get difficult. Even torp-bombing the Ai is almost pointless right now.

 

Torpedo reliant bombers are low tier. The only really high tier attacker with torpedoes is the AD-2 with a large complement of other weapons to choose from. Have you seen how pathetic the low BR destroyer cruiser and battleship aa batteries of the day were? It's a few machine-guns and (20-40 mm) cannons with limited arcs and traverse. A tbd devastator would be a terrible sight for a Minekaze class with two 7.7 machine guns. Especially because even if the Minekaze had dual purpose guns (which it did not) it would be damn impressive to hit a plane on the deck with a manually timed fuse.

 

Low tier planes will have no problem, high tier planes will have lots of options.

[SeraphsWrath 126]

21 hours ago, twoand900 said:

 

I didn't say aircraft would be useless, their role would be more of support or harassment or whatever, taking out ships will be done mostly be ships (not to say they wont ever take out ships) also they should fly with a squad of 5 or so AI planes

So, essentially, you think that WT should completely reverse the meta so that ship players can have large ships. That's not gonna happen.

 

3 hours ago, Iprinz said:

 

Torpedo reliant bombers are low tier. The only really high tier attacker with torpedoes is the AD-2 with a large complement of other weapons to choose from. Have you seen how pathetic the low BR destroyer cruiser and battleship aa batteries of the day were? It's a few machine-guns and (20-40 mm) cannons with limited arcs and traverse. A tbd devastator would be a terrible sight for a Minekaze class with two 7.7 machine guns. Especially because even if the Minekaze had dual purpose guns (which it did not) it would be damn impressive to hit a plane on the deck with a manually timed fuse.

 

Low tier planes will have no problem, high tier planes will have lots of options.

It all depends on what we include at low tiers. Keep in mind, with some of the rapid-firing casemate guns, it would be possible to snipe planes out of the air with your main guns. And, scoff though you (plural) may, I've done it with Tigers, Panthers, Jagdpanzers, M4s, and even a Stug! You don't have to be a dedicated AA vehicle to kill planes.

And that's not all bombers, either. What about the B-17? The B-29? Just because they don't carry torpedoes doesn't mean that they can't be ripped apart by high-altitude flak shells, especially with bomber spawns at their current level.

 

Also remember that WT only has 5 tiers. Where are you going to put the Cleveland? It can't go up against even New Yorks, with the WT damage system (it only can in WoWS thanks to the magic healthbar and magic fires)!

[twoand900 593]

32 minutes ago, SeraphsWrath said:

So, essentially, you think that WT should completely reverse the meta so that ship players can have large ships. That's not gonna happen.

 

As I said before, normal air battles aren't going anywhere, naval battles driving force will be ships in the same way tank battles driving force is tanks.

 

Furthermore the tanks, planes and ships game mode, as stated by Gaijin, will be left for special events because it would be way to hard to balance