Aircraft Carriers

[[email protected] 686]

Hello all,

W/ the announcement of Open Beta pre-registration for War Thunder Mobile, and knowing how Gaijin tends to share things between the games under their umbrella, I think now is a good time to have a thread for discussing Aircraft Carriers in WT.

The purposes of this thread are:

P1 - To speculate on possible additions of aircraft carriers, and features relating to them( mission design, gameplay mechanics etc. )

P2 - To discuss aircraft carriers as implemented currently


It 'll be exciting to see where aircraft carriers go from here !  Wishing you safe skies, calm seas, and an enjoyable discussion here.
 
 

[Batwingsix 719]

I dont think the day will come when players will be able to control carriers thankfully.

 

A: You wont be able to sail the ship, and fly an aircraft at the same time.

B: Maps are far too small for even destroyers right now, let alone an Aircraft Carrier controlled by a player... hence we dont even see them outside of EC where they are a destroy objective.

C: Far too easy to troll with if other players are reliant on landing on a player controlled one.

 

TLDR: The other ship game people who want to have that feature here shouldn't get their hopes up.

[[email protected] 103]

While all the negative possibilities are an absolute problem that could happen I would still like to see carrier vessels although IMO only light would probably work as such CVL's (Light), CVE's (Escort), MAC's (Merchant Aircraft Carrier) which could work under 5.0 pretty well.

 

If the devs were to handle carriers like the Battlestations series we could see them work really well and the devs do have the ability to do similar if they used the old squadron system from the single missions as well.

 

Now if they handle them like WOWS then yeah we may see it being hated by most players whom come from there.

 

On the plus side WT AA is absolutely devastating to single aircraft especially if the player is the one that mans their AA which is a thousand times better then the poxy RNG from wows which people bring up as an argument against CV's and definitely more advanced than Battlestations AA (although that was an old game from the 2000's).

 

If we were to start off slow we could see Seaplane Tenders first off which is similar to current catapult cruisers but with larger flyingboats equipped with torpedoes, Or we see further Aviation Cruisers added example the Tone class in a pre 1945 refit or for example the Gotland class of Sweden.

 

On a sidenote god I wish the AI Heavy Aviation Cruiser Baku Pr.1143 was a player ship still even without it's aircraft or missiles for it would play like an oversized Pr.1331M hah and heh if the BR was high enough Yakovlev Yak-38's with just bombs or the Kamov Ka-29 with missiles if they were to add naval helicopters to the mode (honestly would probably play like current AShM's equipped FAC's), Yet these ideas of mine would be better off in a larger suggestion.

[kkang2828 1,442]

We. Don't. Need. Player. Controlled. Carriers. Period. Same for subs and AShM-era naval.

 

The current game is absolutely not ready for them, and even in the future it's doubtful if Gaijin is even remotely capable of developing and managing the complex mechanics required to make those things work properly. The current gunnery-and-torpedo-based naval combat environment is FAR from being polished, so any work needs to focus on that, which will probably take several more years. If any radically new elements(i.e. carriers, subs, AShMs) are introduced right now or in the foreseeable future, they will only make naval even worse and even more chaotic.

 

Whatever different stuff is in the mobile game, it needs to STAY in the mobile game.

[Seahawk_2015 55]

It is impossible for the aircraft carrier operating player to fly aircraft obviously - the aircraft would have to be flown by other players. Aircraft carriers should be added to naval battles but they should be Ai controlled. Because one can do nothing while operating an aircraft carrier other than protecting the ship from enemy aircraft. 

Edited March 21 by Seahawk_2015

[[email protected] 686]

Since the modern carriers already appear at jet BR 's in Air RB( even on some single-sided maps like Norway, unusually ), it'd be nice if those new WW2 carriers would replace their low-poly counterparts at the lower BR 's where it 's more common to see them.

Maybe they're just waiting until they import the other four second world war ones, so they can do a 1:1 replacement of the x4 carriers that typically appear at prop BR 's. Rather than the x2 pairs that jets use.

[[email protected] 1,771]

On 18/03/2023 at 23:49, [email protected] said:

If we were to start off slow we could see Seaplane Tenders first off which is similar to current catapult cruisers but with larger flyingboats equipped with torpedoes, Or we see further Aviation Cruisers added example the Tone class in a pre 1945 refit or for example the Gotland class of Sweden.

 

These especially (including Akitsushima), yes please! The next step we need towards this is to be able to "reload" and launch spare aircraft from current ships, as right now they only serve as decorations.

 

As for full carriers, I'm definitely hopeful we'll see them down the line. We already have many of the base elements needed in the game, such as the implementation of scout planes for current ships. Playable carriers would effectively use aircraft as their "ammo", and the player could cycle through each of them, as well as assign them targets in much the same way we can currently assign targets for our primary, secondary, and AA gunners. Heck, they could simply make this work rather literally and just give the aircraft AI the current primary/secondary targeting slots, thus needing no new mechanic/keybind for this. And of course, you would also serve as a resupply/repair airfield for your team as well, one much closer and faster than the land-based airfield.

 

On the more silly/fun side of things, it would also be incredibly amusing to try to get into surface fights with carriers that have notable surface armament, like the Lexingtons.

Edited March 21 by [email protected]

[kkang2828 1,442]

2 hours ago, [email protected] said:

As for full carriers, I'm definitely hopeful we'll see them down the line. We already have many of the base elements needed in the game, such as the implementation of scout planes for current ships. Playable carriers would effectively use aircraft as their "ammo", and the player could cycle through each of them, as well as assign them targets in much the same way we can currently assign targets for our primary, secondary, and AA gunners. Heck, they could simply make this work rather literally and just give the aircraft AI the current primary/secondary targeting slots, thus needing no new mechanic/keybind for this. And of course, you would also serve as a resupply/repair airfield for your team as well, one much closer and faster than the land-based airfield.

 

That would be very similar to the "old" WoWs carrier mechanics, which I did like a fair bit tbh. But I don't know what implications that would have in WT.

 

Though I think you would agree that the current surface warfare elements need a lot more polish before we can hope to integrate stuff like carriers smoothly.

[[email protected] 103]

2 hours ago, [email protected] said:

 

These especially (including Akitsushima), yes please! The next step we need towards this is to be able to "reload" and launch spare aircraft from current ships, as right now they only serve as decorations.

 

We kinda already have the Seaplane Tender Akitsushima in game yet as a colour scheme for the Destroyer Shimakaze strangely (Similar HMS Vindictive which was in carrier configuration for the scheme for HMS Hawkins).. But it would be great to be able to launch say a Mavis in battle and torpedo some enemy ships with it heh.

 

And yes the ships cranes current serve no use but it would be cool to be able to recover your Seaplanes in battle which would be feasible in RB/AB NF EC.

 

2 hours ago, [email protected] said:

As for full carriers, I'm definitely hopeful we'll see them down the line. We already have many of the base elements needed in the game, such as the implementation of scout planes for current ships. Playable carriers would effectively use aircraft as their "ammo", and the player could cycle through each of them, as well as assign them targets in much the same way we can currently assign targets for our primary, secondary, and AA gunners. Heck, they could simply make this work rather literally and just give the aircraft AI the current primary/secondary targeting slots, thus needing no new mechanic/keybind for this. And of course, you would also serve as a resupply/repair airfield for your team as well, one much closer and faster than the land-based airfield.

 

8 minutes ago, kkang2828 said:

 

That would be very similar to the "old" WoWs carrier mechanics, which I did like a fair bit tbh. But I don't know what implications that would have in WT.

In some sense both of you also kinda description the Battlestations series carrier operations and imo it was still superior to old WoWS.

 

So in BS:P (Pacific) as example a CV would have the option of three or four aircraft types that you would select from an ammo pool of sorts (US CV 30 Hellcats, 50 Helldivers, 50 Avengers) and prior to takeoff you would select each aircrafts weaponry load be it bombs, rocket, torpedoes and even depth charges and as the battle unfolded you'd run down your stocks from loses yet you could recover your aircraft as well.

 

And yes that would be a boon to the teammates if they could land on your flight deck resulting in a small service bonus to the carrier. 

 

2 hours ago, [email protected] said:

On the more silly/fun side of things, it would also be incredibly amusing to try to get into surface fights with carriers that have notable surface armament, like the Lexingtons.

Yes depending on the carrier especially pre WWII ones their armament varied between a 3" & an 18" cannon (mid conversion HMS Furious) & the Lexington class prior to WWII did have those dual 8" mounts which would be interesting if they devs made refits modifications like a T-64B becoming a T-64BV as example. 

[[email protected] 1,771]

1 hour ago, kkang2828 said:

Though I think you would agree that the current surface warfare elements need a lot more polish before we can hope to integrate stuff like carriers smoothly.

 

I do thinks some things need to be implemented and/or iterated on first (such as the expansion to launched aircraft mechanics I mentioned) and I definitely think we're closer to seeing subs than carriers (though interestingly carrier aircraft would serve as a good counter to subs, while carriers themselves would be vulnerable, this is good), and while I'm all for further QoL and mechanic improvements and upgrades, I don't see much that "needs" to happen in those regards before we can see carriers.

 

Most issues that we commonly see in Naval are either odd specific balance issues (like certain SAP shells overperforming) or issues outside of "actual" gameplay itself (certain types of not-presently-playing players). AI gunner auto-targeting could also use a look. I'd really prefer if AI gunners never engaged without being commanded to in RB, so we don't have massed teams of barely-there players somehow also creating an effectively impenetrable AA screen; when planes get shot down by AI instead of player control the vast majority of the time, clearly something isn't quite designed properly.

 

But generally, most of my asks at the moment are smaller nice-to-have elements, like proper HUD customization for Naval (which the other modes have), so my rangefinder and impact indicator don't have to be that ugly modern-radar green. The ability to set a range value manually, instead of it being relative to the target. That sort of thing. But nothing that I could see being in the way of having carriers (or subs, though they'll need sonar/etc implemented).

 

 

1 hour ago, [email protected] said:

So in BS:P (Pacific) as example a CV would have the option of three or four aircraft types that you would select from an ammo pool of sorts (US CV 30 Hellcats, 50 Helldivers, 50 Avengers) and prior to takeoff you would select each aircrafts weaponry load be it bombs, rocket, torpedoes and even depth charges and as the battle unfolded you'd run down your stocks from loses yet you could recover your aircraft as well.

 

Yeah, researchable aircraft types in place of ammo selection would be perfect, set with sliders similar to how shells are. And what models of aircraft a given ship has would naturally influence its BR.

 

 

1 hour ago, [email protected] said:

Yes depending on the carrier especially pre WWII ones their armament varied between a 3" & an 18" cannon (mid conversion HMS Furious) & the Lexington class prior to WWII did have those dual 8" mounts which would be interesting if they devs made refits modifications like a T-64B becoming a T-64BV as example. 

 

Furious with a forward flight deck and rear 18" would be hilarious, though I very much want her intended two 18" turret setup in the game regardless of carriers. Furious with the forward and rear decks and the superstructure in the middle would also make for hilarious shenanigans when people try to land.

[[email protected] 103]

1 hour ago, [email protected] said:

Yeah, researchable aircraft types in place of ammo selection would be perfect, set with sliders similar to how shells are. And what models of aircraft a given ship has would naturally influence its BR.

Well I've had a bit of an idea in relation to these sorts of things if carriers were added how would the aircraft research work? 

 

Would aircraft be apart of the modification research screen like currect catapult aircraft or would we see a sort of system were you unlock an aircraft in the main TT which then inturn you could use on your carriers deck, Similar would custom loadouts be a thing as well which you could select the combination of aircraft taken into battle. 

 

Bone stock a carrier would start off with pre war aircraft like devastators or Vindicators.

 

Sidenote: I had a similar idea for this but getting the current catapult aircraft into the main TT after researching the ships mod.

 

1 hour ago, [email protected] said:

Furious with a forward flight deck and rear 18" would be hilarious, though I very much want her intended two 18" turret setup in the game regardless of carriers. Furious with the forward and rear decks and the superstructure in the middle would also make for hilarious shenanigans when people try to land.

Honestly I really want as As designed HMS Furious as well but that would be an old sight if in it's near fully conversion with the superstructure centre similar to HMS Vindictive in carrier form before it's 1923 conversion back to a cruiser, Although the drawback would be early aircraft in battle (shouldn't be a problem now that a 1917 design is in game Fairey IIIF).

[kkang2828 1,442]

1 hour ago, [email protected] said:

I do thinks some things need to be implemented and/or iterated on first (such as the expansion to launched aircraft mechanics I mentioned) and I definitely think we're closer to seeing subs than carriers (though interestingly carrier aircraft would serve as a good counter to subs, while carriers themselves would be vulnerable, this is good), and while I'm all for further QoL and mechanic improvements and upgrades, I don't see much that "needs" to happen in those regards before we can see carriers.

 

Most issues that we commonly see in Naval are either odd specific balance issues (like certain SAP shells overperforming) or issues outside of "actual" gameplay itself (certain types of not-presently-playing players). AI gunner auto-targeting could also use a look. I'd really prefer if AI gunners never engaged without being commanded to in RB, so we don't have massed teams of barely-there players somehow also creating an effectively impenetrable AA screen; when planes get shot down by AI instead of player control the vast majority of the time, clearly something isn't quite designed properly.

 

But generally, most of my asks at the moment are smaller nice-to-have elements, like proper HUD customization for Naval (which the other modes have), so my rangefinder and impact indicator don't have to be that ugly modern-radar green. The ability to set a range value manually, instead of it being relative to the target. That sort of thing. But nothing that I could see being in the way of having carriers (or subs, though they'll need sonar/etc implemented).

 

What about the DMs and shell/torpedo damage mechanics and damage control mechanics? Are they in a satisfactory state right now? What about the current maps and game modes? Do you think those could work with subs and carriers? What about the lack of balance in general(i.e. lack of quantitative MM)? What about all the numerous modelling errors and historical inaccuracies? What about all the missing 'filler' destroyers and cruisers and capital ships?(I know you love them, would you sacrifice some of them for 'shiny' new carriers and subs?)

 

Do we honestly need any radically new stuff that would introduce more balancing difficulties and pull away time and resources that could be better used to polish and expand the current environment instead?

 

In the current maps and game modes(outside of EC), the carriers would be operating within or very near the edge of gun and heavy AA range of enemy surface units, and that would not work at all. IMO subs would be even harder to implement than carriers, as the whole underwater area of all maps would have to be redesigned, and the whole ASW aspect is pretty complicated as well. And then there's the issue of exactly how to make subs fun and balanced at the same time, considering their unique features and limitations. Some people talk about the potential for sub chasers and destroyers and aircraft to conduct ASW(i.e. "depth charges would finally be used as they're supposed to" and "small ships would have a role in high tier matches"), but they don't realize that any kind of ASW in the current maps and game modes(outside of EC) would have to be done within gun and AA range of enemy surface units almost all the time, which again wouldn't work at all.

[CyberNapoleon 597]

I struggle to see how aircraft carriers would work in WT naval, to be honest. It's the same with subs and anti-ship missiles, they're not going to work for various reasons but people still ask for them, primarily because "they're cool in other games". Then play those. But let's get back to the point, I can picture two broad concepts for how they would theoretically work;

 

The first thing that comes to mind with how carriers would work in WT is that they'd be mobile airfields, I guess you could have AI-controlled ones at the back of the map where you took off from or land naval planes to be repaired, but player-controlled? Maybe I'm getting the wrong end of the stick here, but just being a playable platform for your teammates to take off or land on, that doesn't sound particularly fun.

 

Of course, they also exist in that other ship game. I definitely don't want them implemented like that in this game, because anyone who plays that game will tell you that class is truly hated there. It used to be the most hated class until subs snatched that title away from them, but that's another topic entirely. In general, mechanics where you can attack other players at no danger to yourself (as carriers are in WoWs), they shouldn't exist in a PvP game, period. Getting killed by something you've got no counterplay against is objectively horrible gameplay.

[[email protected] 686]

On 19/03/2023 at 02:49, [email protected] said:

On a sidenote god I wish the AI Heavy Aviation Cruiser Baku Pr.1143 was a player ship still even without it's aircraft or missiles

Speaking of, there 's something interesting as it appears in the asset viewer:

Spoiler

It 's P-500 launch tubes are already modelled as being part of it 's weaponry, similar to the MTY-4 Strela tubes on the Pr.12412 that Bvvd said would later be made operational back when the first example of that ship was added in update " Hot Tracks ". The KT-153 anti-submarine projectors are modelled too !

 

Spoiler

Normal visual textures:
X-ray textures, and view of SM-241 's removed:


X-ray view of KT-153 removed:

 

 

18 hours ago, [email protected] said:

On the more silly/fun side of things, it would also be incredibly amusing to try to get into surface fights with carriers that have notable surface armament, like the Lexingtons.

It would be peak comedy to shatter some poor sap in a PT-109 using an aircraft carrier 's main guns I think
On the Lexington 's specifically, you might be in luck w/ CV-2 herself. She 's modelled as being in her last refit retaining the 8in guns:

Spoiler

Saratoga is in a later fit, using only 5in 's:

Spoiler

 

 

12 hours ago, CyberNapoleon said:

I guess you could have AI-controlled ones at the back of the map where you took off from or land naval planes to be repaired

It 's still strange that so few Naval maps have even that option, the only ones I can think of are the open-circle cap versions of Jungle and Midway.
Still using the old low-res models btw
 

[Shadow__CZ 2,186]

Can people stop using the moving airfield argument, please. I could understand it before we got spotter planes and drones. We could litteraly get current WOWS carrier implementation with no new mechanic. And that leads me to next point stop using WOWS as example why CVs wont work. The WT has actually working AA and it would actually work better against squad of planes then one lone fighter performing acrobatics so carriers wouldn´t nowhere near as OP as they are there. And also the planes would certainly be counted as ammo (and expensive one at that) so loosing them would surely be quite costly.

 

So how could they be implemented, in my opinion?

Best way would be very simmilar to BS:P. I will borrow brief describtion from my old old suggestion made during the CBT: (please note that it isn´t direct one to one copy)

Quote

A player could launch squads of planes and guide them around the map. Also player could enter "orders" by pressing dedicated button (EDIT: or maybe us current pie menu). These commands would be Attack, Defend, Group and direct controll.

These would work as follows:

• Attack - would make AI squadroon agressive and activelly seek enemy AI planes but wouldn´t attack ships.
• Defend - would make AI squad circle around specified area and attack any planes getting close to this area.
• Group - would allow to form group of multiple squadss
• Control - would allow player to control a squadroon directly and would be only way to attack enemy ships.

All this could be done in special view very simmilar to arty view. With all info needed for controlling the squads and their state:

Mind you this is picture from old suggestion and so minimaps is representing suggested gamemode. And I belive that ability to choose any other ammo then the suspended armament is no longer desirable.

Player could change the suspended weaponry and flight altitude as is shown, and send planes around the map. There is also state indicator for all squads:

Spoiler

http://i.imgur.com/Mz7dVeN.png

1. Squad is taking off.
2. Squad is waiting for take off.
3. Squad is waiting for order/rearming
4. Squad is flying to set location.
5. Squad is landing.
6. Squad is under attack,
7. Squad is in group with other squad
8. Squad is defending area
9. Squad is in agressive mode

Here is GIF showing how the controll view would look:

The dirrect control would work very simmilary as it currently does for spotter planes with one difference that player plane would be followed by several other AI planes which would mirror player actions so they would drop ordenance with player. 

Plese again ignore the expanded info present on the image it is no longer relevan.

The planes would replace ammo for the CVs so players could choose the number of squads and plane type like they do for shells.

I belive there is way how to solve the issue of planes landing and starting AI would just need to get  into area behind carrier and rest would be just animation. Same mechanic is used to move player planes to runway start after repair although the would be needed to be more complex and have more stages. 

There is outline of staging which could work:

Landing:

Spoiler

Stages:

1. AI planes is in "landing zone"
2. Plane is now "on wire" moved behind and over deck (current system allow tilting and turning but it would need to be more fluent and natural)
3. Plane on wire will perform descend and landing
4. After touch down plane is slowed down and moved over elevator
5. Wings are fold and plane is moved into hangar.

Start:

Spoiler

Stages:

• A
  1. Plane is moved "on wire" from hangar and unfolds wings
  2. Plane is moved to catapult start
  3. Plane is lunched from ship and "on wire" moved into area in front of ship
  4. When plane enters this area wire is turned of and plane is under AI control
• B
  1. Plane is moved "on wire" from hangar and unfold wings
  2. Plane accelerates and take off.
  3. Plane is "on wire" moved into area in front of ship
  4. When plane enters this area wire is turned of and plane is under AI control

 

But I want to be clear while I would like to see CVs in game and I even believe they fit current meta much better then subs I think that current game needs more polish. For example while I would say that current DM is fine (crew compartments aren´t ideal but are workable) for ship to ship combat. There is issues present which must be fixed - bombs still act as entities and not as shells so they can ignore armor and we are still lacking any structural damage making torpedoes next to useless (where is the fixed version of hull break from Danger Zone? update).

Also gamemodes and maps are not really suited for CV (but TBH they are not suited for anything larger then DDs) and I would say having era based TTs (same as GF and AF) would be also helpful.

[[email protected] 1,771]

16 hours ago, kkang2828 said:

What about the DMs and shell/torpedo damage mechanics and damage control mechanics? Are they in a satisfactory state right now?

 

Do you actually want replies to all these loaded and partially-rhetorical questions? Alright.

 

For the most part, yes. Things can always be improved and iterated on, but in the context of "are the current systems so bad that they need work before we add new vehicles and/or vehicles types?" I would have to give that a firm no, we're absolutely nowhere close to that sort of state.

 

 

16 hours ago, kkang2828 said:

What about the current maps and game modes? Do you think those could work with subs and carriers?

 

While I do feel many maps have a serious issue with "waist-high islands" as it were, the ones that simultaneously sort of block line of sight but also don't block the lock mechanic, aside from that I don't have an issue with maps as a whole. In terms of maps, subs can just drop straight in (likely with destroyer spawns) while carriers would presumably just get another spawn area further back, just like the current difference between destroyers/frigates and battleships/cruisers.

 

 

16 hours ago, kkang2828 said:

What about the lack of balance in general(i.e. lack of quantitative MM)?

 

Balance is pretty decent for the most part. But I've long since learned that if you go by the common posts in any online gaming community, their game is horrifically unbalanced and worse than every other game to ever exist; this question definitely feels like "assuming the premise" to me.

 

I'm all for improvements to quantitative matchmaking, but again, in the context of this discussion there really isn't anything noteworthy or relevant here.

 

 

16 hours ago, kkang2828 said:

What about all the numerous modelling errors and historical inaccuracies?

 

I don't have a list handy, but while those exist in WT, they exist across all types of vehicles at all BR ranges, and many of them tend to get patched. As with all QoL type improvements, we get a steady stream of these sorts of things in both major patches and the weekly patches in between, so not really a factor here.

 

 

16 hours ago, kkang2828 said:

 

What about all the missing 'filler' destroyers and cruisers and capital ships?(I know you love them, would you sacrifice some of them for 'shiny' new carriers and subs?)

 

As with much of these questions, this is purely a false dichotomy. We get new vehicles that aren't shiny new top tier or new types every single patch, like that nice batch of WWII tanks in the most recent patch. We'll continue to get the "filler" ships I love to see regardless of getting more ship types and/or top-of-the-tree ships. As is the case for planes and tanks too.

 

 

16 hours ago, kkang2828 said:

In the current maps and game modes(outside of EC), the carriers would be operating within or very near the edge of gun and heavy AA range of enemy surface units, and that would not work at all.

 

Of course they would be. Do you actually expect that they would get to just sit comfortably outside of attack in a PvP game? This feels close to the so-called "bomber mains" or "attacker mains" complaining they get attacked by fighters, like, literally ever. Or maybe more appropriately, it would be like thinking that playing an SPAA should mean you'll never be at risk of attack from other ground vehicles.

 

Carriers may be large, and may in real world strategic terms be (in '30s/'40s terms) be roughly "on par" with battleships, but in the context of War Thunder that does not mean they'd all be 6.0+ in BR. Many carriers would likely be down at destroyer BRs. I do feel a decent amount of people in the carrier/sub discussions are quietly assuming a certain BR bracket and then arguing with those assumptions as a basis.

 

 

16 hours ago, kkang2828 said:

IMO subs would be even harder to implement than carriers, as the whole underwater area of all maps would have to be redesigned,

 

They'd really be easier.

 

Map depth can be as simple as just lowering the level of the seafloor where needed, basically the most simple and basic map editing there can be, and it wouldn't even affect surface combat. Hardly any sort of reason against them.

 

 

16 hours ago, kkang2828 said:

and the whole ASW aspect is pretty complicated as well.

 

It would be "complicated"? I'm not seeing any substance to a statement like that. There's no chance that giving certain ships sonar would be anywhere close to as complex as current top-tier jet and SPAA radar, as well as their various types of missiles, plus countermeasures, and stuff like notching and those sorts of things.

 

I would assume most of us around here keep up with the datamines, I'd assume you all see the looooooong lists of constant changes and additions to those radar systems, always with tons of very intricate detail. I have no doubts about sonar being implemented.

 

 

16 hours ago, kkang2828 said:

And then there's the issue of exactly how to make subs fun and balanced at the same time, considering their unique features and limitations.

 

They would inherently be fun to those who enjoy their type of playstyle, just like plenty of other niche/specialized vehicle types.

 

 

16 hours ago, kkang2828 said:

Some people talk about the potential for sub chasers and destroyers and aircraft to conduct ASW(i.e. "depth charges would finally be used as they're supposed to" and "small ships would have a role in high tier matches"), but they don't realize that any kind of ASW in the current maps and game modes(outside of EC) would have to be done within gun and AA range of enemy surface units almost all the time, which again wouldn't work at all.

 

Again, of course they would. Ships performing ASW shouldn't be able to just freely sail around the middle of the map with nothing to counter them, that's just silly.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, [email protected] said:

It would be peak comedy to shatter some poor sap in a PT-109 using an aircraft carrier 's main guns I think

 

On the Lexington 's specifically, you might be in luck w/ CV-2 herself. She 's modelled as being in her last refit retaining the 8in guns:

Saratoga is in a later fit, using only 5in 's:

 

Oh right, I forgot they had 8" guns, that's even better lol; I was thinking of the 5" ones.

[kkang2828 1,442]

6 hours ago, [email protected] said:

 

Do you actually want replies to all these loaded and partially-rhetorical questions? Alright.

 

For the most part, yes. Things can always be improved and iterated on, but in the context of "are the current systems so bad that they need work before we add new vehicles and/or vehicles types?" I would have to give that a firm no, we're absolutely nowhere close to that sort of state.

 

 

 

While I do feel many maps have a serious issue with "waist-high islands" as it were, the ones that simultaneously sort of block line of sight but also don't block the lock mechanic, aside from that I don't have an issue with maps as a whole. In terms of maps, subs can just drop straight in (likely with destroyer spawns) while carriers would presumably just get another spawn area further back, just like the current difference between destroyers/frigates and battleships/cruisers.

 

 

 

Balance is pretty decent for the most part. But I've long since learned that if you go by the common posts in any online gaming community, their game is horrifically unbalanced and worse than every other game to ever exist; this question definitely feels like "assuming the premise" to me.

 

I'm all for improvements to quantitative matchmaking, but again, in the context of this discussion there really isn't anything noteworthy or relevant here.

 

 

 

I don't have a list handy, but while those exist in WT, they exist across all types of vehicles at all BR ranges, and many of them tend to get patched. As with all QoL type improvements, we get a steady stream of these sorts of things in both major patches and the weekly patches in between, so not really a factor here.

 

 

 

As with much of these questions, this is purely a false dichotomy. We get new vehicles that aren't shiny new top tier or new types every single patch, like that nice batch of WWII tanks in the most recent patch. We'll continue to get the "filler" ships I love to see regardless of getting more ship types and/or top-of-the-tree ships. As is the case for planes and tanks too.

 

 

 

Of course they would be. Do you actually expect that they would get to just sit comfortably outside of attack in a PvP game? This feels close to the so-called "bomber mains" or "attacker mains" complaining they get attacked by fighters, like, literally ever. Or maybe more appropriately, it would be like thinking that playing an SPAA should mean you'll never be at risk of attack from other ground vehicles.

 

Carriers may be large, and may in real world strategic terms be (in '30s/'40s terms) be roughly "on par" with battleships, but in the context of War Thunder that does not mean they'd all be 6.0+ in BR. Many carriers would likely be down at destroyer BRs. I do feel a decent amount of people in the carrier/sub discussions are quietly assuming a certain BR bracket and then arguing with those assumptions as a basis.

 

 

 

They'd really be easier.

 

Map depth can be as simple as just lowering the level of the seafloor where needed, basically the most simple and basic map editing there can be, and it wouldn't even affect surface combat. Hardly any sort of reason against them.

 

 

 

It would be "complicated"? I'm not seeing any substance to a statement like that. There's no chance that giving certain ships sonar would be anywhere close to as complex as current top-tier jet and SPAA radar, as well as their various types of missiles, plus countermeasures, and stuff like notching and those sorts of things.

 

I would assume most of us around here keep up with the datamines, I'd assume you all see the looooooong lists of constant changes and additions to those radar systems, always with tons of very intricate detail. I have no doubts about sonar being implemented.

 

 

 

They would inherently be fun to those who enjoy their type of playstyle, just like plenty of other niche/specialized vehicle types.

 

 

 

Again, of course they would. Ships performing ASW shouldn't be able to just freely sail around the middle of the map with nothing to counter them, that's just silly.

 

 

 

 

Oh right, I forgot they had 8" guns, that's even better lol; I was thinking of the 5" ones.

 

I actually wasn't wanting detailed answers to each of those questions, but I guess this is just another one of those "agree to disagree" things. The fact is, carriers and subs would need a fair amount of work to implement, and at least for the foreseeable future, I'd like any and all dev effort on naval to be directed at polishing current naval instead. 

Edited March 22 by kkang2828

[kkang2828 1,442]

22 hours ago, CyberNapoleon said:

I struggle to see how aircraft carriers would work in WT naval, to be honest. It's the same with subs and anti-ship missiles, they're not going to work for various reasons but people still ask for them, primarily because "they're cool in other games". Then play those.

 

Agreed. Many people are too optimistic about Gaijin's ability to make things work properly. Although I do somewhat agree with Shadow as well that the "moving airfield" and "WoWs" arguments about carriers are a bit faulty. Main reason I don't want radically new elements in naval are the consequences of a potential improper implementation, and the pathetic design/scale of the current maps and game modes(even EC is quite poorly designed right now).

[[email protected] 2]

Can we get period accurate aircraft carriers in sim battles. Props shouldn't be facing a modern aircraft carrier. 

[CyberNapoleon 597]

13 hours ago, [email protected] said:

It 's still strange that so few Naval maps have even that option, the only ones I can think of are the open-circle cap versions of Jungle and Midway.
Still using the old low-res models btw

I wasn't even aware they existed tbh, since I play naval arcade and they don't seem to appear there at all. Matches are probably too short in that mode for it to happen but maybe they should, idk.

12 hours ago, Shadow__CZ said:

Can people stop using the moving airfield argument, please. I could understand it before we got spotter planes and drones. We could litteraly get current WOWS carrier implementation with no new mechanic. And that leads me to next point stop using WOWS as example why CVs wont work. The WT has actually working AA and it would actually work better against squad of planes then one lone fighter performing acrobatics so carriers wouldn´t nowhere near as OP as they are there. And also the planes would certainly be counted as ammo (and expensive one at that) so loosing them would surely be quite costly.

 

So how could they be implemented, in my opinion?

Best way would be very simmilar to BS:P. I will borrow brief describtion from my old old suggestion made during the CBT: (please note that it isn´t direct one to one copy)

 

But I want to be clear while I would like to see CVs in game and I even believe they fit current meta much better then subs I think that current game needs more polish. For example while I would say that current DM is fine (crew compartments aren´t ideal but are workable) for ship to ship combat. There is issues present which must be fixed - bombs still act as entities and not as shells so they can ignore armor and we are still lacking any structural damage making torpedoes next to useless (where is the fixed version of hull break from Danger Zone? update).

Also gamemodes and maps are not really suited for CV (but TBH they are not suited for anything larger then DDs) and I would say having era based TTs (same as GF and AF) would be also helpful.

That's fair, the floating airfield one sounds extremely boring, I'd hope Gaijin would know that. As for the "WoWs" model, that's true, AA is a lot more effective than in that game. The main thing I'm cautious of is the mechanic being like, basically, if the CV wants you dead, that's it, you're gonna die, and there's nothing you can do about it as they proceed to yeet you back to port. As I said, being instagibbed without the opportunity to counterplay, that's simply not a mechanic that should exist in a PvP game. That's also why I don't think subs would be a good idea, but again, that's a different topic. If we can find a way to make carriers not totally OP like that, sure, why not? It is worth remembering though, that carriers historically were "OP", they're the reason that this sort of ship-to-ship combat went extinct IRL. So they gotta find a way to implement them without doing that. They also made the battleship in particular go the way of the dodo, so that's something we should keep in mind too. I gotta say though, I read your submission for carriers and it's very well-thought out. Who knows? Maybe that could work.

 

3 hours ago, kkang2828 said:

 

Agreed. Many people are too optimistic about Gaijin's ability to make things work properly. Although I do somewhat agree with Shadow as well that the "moving airfield" and "WoWs" arguments about carriers are a bit faulty. Main reason I don't want radically new elements in naval are the consequences of a potential improper implementation, and the pathetic design/scale of the current maps and game modes(even EC is quite poorly designed right now).

Absolutely, they seem to think "oh, it'll be fine" when they've added a lot of mechanics that certainly are not fine, but who knows, we can't pre-empt them there. I do agree that using WoWs isn't ideal, ergo for subs as well, but it's the only game that kinda-sorta tries to do the same thing as War Thunder naval, I do think we should look at it. If carriers and subs are problematic in that game, I think that has some lessons for us here. The issue with having carriers as a sort of strategy-esque model, it's almost a separate game, I'm not sure that belongs in War Thunder. Though if they can find a way to implement it and have it be fun both to play as and against (emphasis on against), perhaps my fear will be unfounded. Naval already has few players as it is to the point where it's the butt of jokes, I wouldn't want something to drive away the few players that there are.

[Shadow__CZ 2,186]

@[email protected] I think you can agree that at very least DM needs rework before CVs and/or sub's are added. Both of these heavily rely on broken weaponry. All bombs ignore armor since they clip through ships, the explosion and armor interaction is also just so so. Torpedoes are next to useless since we have no structural damage so basically any torpedoes which aren't long lances are next to useless against larger ships since they do very little damage.

 

Regarding subs, I still feel that their main problem is they simply don't fit current meta. While I also don't see issues with sonar while it is complex I am sure it isn't impossible. But I see big issues in the gameplay loop. 

What ships are subs supposed to primarily engage?

- Battleships? Where BBs have no counterplay for them and subs would need to be spawned in basically spawncamping zone? That doesn't seem to be good.

- Cruisers? Again very similar situation as BBs

- DDs? Now DDs have counterplay against subs but then subs have a very little chance against DD since surface sub gets obligated right away and submerged sub has little to no way how to engage DD - long range and DD can reliably dodge torps and at close range the torps will go under, the engagement zone in between is quite small. And not to mention the fact that subs are too slow to chase down DDs.

- Boats and other coastal vessels? This I can see working but at that point the subs act as glorified gunboat/monitor with gimmick.

 

I believe that CVs can much more easily fit into current meta one issue being the early dreadnoughts. Since they are high enough to likely face CVs but also have next to no AA. That is legitimate issue and my only solution is getting rid of stupid DD>CL>CA>BB progression. But for that gaijin needs to make better maps and better gamemodes.

 

 

@CyberNapoleon I just don't understand how someone can come up with floating airfield argument now that we have floatplanes and drones. 

Ways to limit damage output of CVs is indeed a concern one thing is obvious in game AA will likely be very powerful against AI squadrons since they will fly in straight line. There is also possibility of making player do every single drop. Of course all these need one thing appropriately strong AA but I touched on that above.

About the counterplay, I don't think that is necessary to be able to damage CV as long as shooting down planes is costly enough and have consequences for the CV player. Cost of 500-1000 per plane would be enough IMO (has anyone idea if spotter planes cost anything currently if they are shot down?) . Also shooting down planes would limit all subsequent attacks permanently for duration of battle. 

 

 

[[email protected] 1,771]

2 hours ago, CyberNapoleon said:

It is worth remembering though, that carriers historically were "OP", they're the reason that this sort of ship-to-ship combat went extinct IRL. So they gotta find a way to implement them without doing that. They also made the battleship in particular go the way of the dodo, so that's something we should keep in mind too. I go

 

Sort of, but also not really. Carriers and their air power absolutely changed surface combat, but it wasn't carriers that killed the battleship, it was guided missiles.

 

Part of the reason this semi-myth is so popular is due to US performance later in the Pacific war, especially cases like Musashi and Yamato. But those aren't really carrier aircraft making battleships obsolete, it was simply a matter of absurdly overwhelming numbers, thanks to the American Essex-class 3D printing machines.

 

What really killed surface combat was guided weapons over the next decade or so. And with that in mind, I'm infinitely more worried about expanding missile systems in Naval than subs or carriers.

 

 

29 minutes ago, Shadow__CZ said:

Regarding subs, I still feel that their main problem is they simply don't fit current meta. While I also don't see issues with sonar while it is complex I am sure it isn't impossible. But I see big issues in the gameplay loop. 

What ships are subs supposed to primarily engage?

- Battleships? Where BBs have no counterplay for them and subs would need to be spawned in basically spawncamping zone? That doesn't seem to be good.

- Cruisers? Again very similar situation as BBs

- DDs? Now DDs have counterplay against subs but then subs have a very little chance against DD since surface sub gets obligated right away and submerged sub has little to no way how to engage DD - long range and DD can reliably dodge torps and at close range the torps will go under, the engagement zone in between is quite small. And not to mention the fact that subs are too slow to chase down DDs.

- Boats and other coastal vessels? This I can see working but at that point the subs act as glorified gunboat/monitor with gimmick.

 

Well naturally subs would shake up the meta, yes. And yeah, they would primarily engage battleships and cruisers (if brought up to those BRs; I'd expect their own BRs to be in the Coastal range), while destroyers and frigates would in turn counter them. It's a proper rock-paper-scissors triangle.

 

I do agree I'd like to see bombs (especially) and torpedoes get their damage/etc looked at, though most of my experience is with Long Lances so I haven't had too many damage issues. They're much of the reason Japanese heavy cruisers are my best-performing ships, and on that note serve as a sort of example of how subs could be effective but balanced at large ship BRs.

 

Unlike missiles in an Air/Ground context which are fast, torps are so slow that it doesn't really matter whether they were launched by a cruiser, destroyer, or sub. Most "counter-play" with regards to torpedoes is about proactively being a difficult target, paired with watching for torpedo wake; the sub being "invisible" has relatively little impact.

[Shadow__CZ 2,186]

7 hours ago, [email protected] said:

I do agree I'd like to see bombs (especially) and torpedoes get their damage/etc looked at, though most of my experience is with Long Lances so I haven't had too many damage issues. They're much of the reason Japanese heavy cruisers are my best-performing ships, and on that note serve as a sort of example of how subs could be effective but balanced at large ship BRs.

The issue is that torpedoes are both underpowered and owerpowered at the same time. The torpedoes are underpowered because their primary method of dealing damage - structuraly damaging the ship - isn´t represented in game well (or in some instances at all) and the stacking of multiple hits isn´t present in game at all. That was to be fixed in Danger Zone? update with introduction of new hull break for large ships but gaijin coded it badly so on devserver it resulted in CAs being destroyed by DD just after one minute of gunfire. So they scraped it but we havent seen fix for it after that.

And why are torpedoes OP? Because they share same issue as bombs - the strange interactions with armor resulting in damage being done to internal compartments been bit inflated - this is highly proportional to the warhead size.

 

I will continue the subs discussion in proper thread.

Edited March 22 by Shadow__CZ

[[email protected] 686]

On 22/03/2023 at 08:04, CyberNapoleon said:

I wasn't even aware they existed tbh, since I play naval arcade and they don't seem to appear there at all. Matches are probably too short in that mode for it to happen but maybe they should, idk.

I've often thought that those maps might work better if they had the [Encounter] setup, more like how they appear in the Air modes. Have something to do other than wander around knee-high islands( or nothing at all ). Replacing the aircraft carriers on them w/ the new, better looking ones in either or both modes would be nice in the meantime, atmosphere is important !

 

 

On 20/03/2023 at 12:49, [email protected] said:

Maybe they're just waiting until they import the other four second world war ones,

Seems like I forgot to expand on this, there 's four other WW2 carriers which were datamined for War Thunder: Edge( the closed-beta name for the upcoming game War Thunder Mobile ) which were not added alongside the ones we received in " Apex Predators " update. Those carriers are:

IJN Kaga
IJN Zuikaku
HMS Implacable
USS Essex

 HMS Illustrious and USS Lexington also appeared w/ those, and were the ones added here in " Apex Predators "

USS Forrestal was also datamined for WT:E then, but had appeared here much earlier in update " New Power ". IJN Shokaku nd USS Saratoga had previously appeared outside WT too, but in Darkflow 's Enlisted rather than the mobile game. USS Enterprise is the only new carrier which hasn't previously appeared in another game under Gaijin.


 It 's those ones from WT:E that haven't yet made the jump here which I believe are most likely to be the next new carriers added, whenever next that may be.

 

[kkang2828 1,442]

On 22/03/2023 at 23:40, [email protected] said:

Sort of, but also not really. Carriers and their air power absolutely changed surface combat, but it wasn't carriers that killed the battleship, it was guided missiles.

 

Part of the reason this semi-myth is so popular is due to US performance later in the Pacific war, especially cases like Musashi and Yamato. But those aren't really carrier aircraft making battleships obsolete, it was simply a matter of absurdly overwhelming numbers, thanks to the American Essex-class 3D printing machines.

 

It was both aircraft and missiles that killed large-caliber-gunnery-based surface warfare. Both far outranged even the best battleship guns and FCS, whilst possessing enough firepower to at least incapacitate(i.e. make them turn back for repairs) even the most heavily armored battleships and cruisers. The advantage of air power over surface warships without proper defenses wasn't only demonstrated by the USN late in the Pacific war either. It was also demonstrated earlier in the Pacific by the IJN, as well as in the Mediterranean and Atlantic by both sides. Nuclear subs and guided torpedoes also played a role, making the submarine threat(which was already a powerful counter to large surface warships without proper escort) much more lethal. 

 

All these developments meant that large battleships and cruisers armed with and armored against large caliber guns became essentially very expensive piñatas and not effective naval combattants. Their offensive power was less effective and less flexible than the newer weapons, whilst they themselves were very vulnerable to the newer weapons against which their thick armor was not hugely effective and their size just made them juicier targets. Nor did they have the necessary stealth to hide from the new threats, unlike the nuclear submarines. Big-gun battleships and cruisers just weren't worth the cost anymore, and had to be phased out.

 

And I fully agree with Shadow here on all points about the game and subs/carriers.

Edited March 24 by kkang2828