This is what you can expect to see in the future, I’ve mostly avoided any duplicate ships without significant modifications and differences, however my knowledge base is predominantly of British and Japanese ships. I did not include un-laid ships this list is exclusively related to laid ships although in my personal opinion there are certain suggestions I would encourage the addition of. I have also only included the ships used by a nation, those built for a different nation, but never used in service I have omitted.
BR’s are merely a suggestion, there are more than 80 ships (83 to be exact) ‘ranked’ here, I may simply have forgotten to edit the BR suggestion.
However in order of the way they appear on the hop bar:
Not included are ships of the same class which are similar, or classes that would clog the game (particularly in the British tree as many are minor incremental improvements).
Ships in the premium/event lines are either ships too difficult for me to place, or ships which would make good squadrons but there are really only like 4.
Feel free to leave any feedback, and please don’t get aggressive about suggested BR’s, its best to keep comparisons within the tree’s although for ships 7.3 and upwards I did try to base them on each other.
Ships like the Lion class are heavily dependant on longer range maps and the implementation of diving shells, depending on implementation many of these br’s may change the Lion’s for example, may be less effective than the Iowa class. Gaijin may model the Sovetsky Soyuz with its full belt, or they may nerf it to circa 12 inches effective thickness as the USSR was incapable of building a panel over 9.1 inches.
I haven’t added anything not laid down. This list is purely ships that we could see according to the current criteria although its inevitable that that will change even if just for France and Italy and Japan (to bridge something between Nagato and Yamato).
But if I could I would’ve included Alsace, Montana, Lion 16E-38, as well as the British Admiral Class Heavy cruisers the B-65, IJN No.13 and many more.
However, if Gaijn doesn’t want to add ships that didn’t exist, he wants to remind you that most nations outside of the US and Japan don’t have modern BBs, and you can imagine a poor Bismarck fighting a Yamato or an Iowa, it would even be ridiculous.
That’s why there’s a massive suggested br gap, Bismarck wouldn’t even be able to see Yamato, the only ships that would be are the Iowa’s, Lion’s, G-3, Sovetsky Soyuz, H-39 and SoDak. Even then I’d want a limit of a maximum of 4 Yamato’s per team as in a full uptier.
Honestly very few ships could stand up to a Yamato, in-fact, even the Sovetsky Soyuz which might become actually feasible in-game, would struggle vs Yamato.
I also think that the maximum per team should be a maximum of 4 to 6 BBs, there are often battles where you have one BB from ww1 and the enemy team has a full BB squad from ww2, the balance on ships does not exist, you also have to look at it in such a way that the gaijn ships are not interested, and the yamato will use to make money, Hoping that players will buy Premium vehicles or skip the tree to get the Yamato, and have no balance at all, that’s what happened with Scharnchort.
9.7 o.0
What’s your plan to prevent Su-25 and A-10 from wrecking every ship?
Also, why is the Dunkerque so low BR? I’m not much of a naval guy but from what I understand the Dunkerque Class was extremely well-designed; with good mobility, armour, and excellent all-forward firepower.
Finally, (and again I don’t really play naval so my understanding of its compression situation is more based on research of vehicle performance than experience in-game) I’d think that 8.7 would be a sufficient top BR for the Yamato and USS Iowa (1984, no missiles). Everything else kinda squish down. Then early cold war naval jets would fight alongside the top ships without being OP. What do you think?
Stop air at BR 7.0, screw the SU-25 the IL-28 would absolutely wreck with that 1400 kg bomb, that’s more than 4 FRITZ X iirc and the AA couldn’t deal with that.
The alternative is add air defence vessels at these br’s, reduce the amount of rp you get for killing them (so battleships do not focus them for cheap kills), and give them extra rp for killing aircraft, kinda like spawn points in ground vehicles. In addition maybe set it up in an enduring confrontation style.
Yup Germany is the current favourite because of that broken Scharnhorst. And Yamato will be in the future, tied with Sovetsky, Russia gets one of the best ships (to make up for their awful navy) and Yamato gets a bunch of premium sales, its a win-win for Gaijin.
I can’t lie though, at times I wish for historical matchmaking just to see how hard the UK and US would stomp. (Until Yamato and then get stomped).
Don’t like the whole Idea except Japan and Italy, and those two needs revision too.
Let’s start with the USA. First, concept of Low Calibre and High Calibre is not matching to the actual battle of War Thunder. In War Thunder, big gun is not everything. If big gun is everything, Bayern and Hood should be superior to Scharnhorst. In game, not at all, and will not changed as even at the end of War Thunder Naval big gun will not be superiority to fast-firing gun. So yeah, don’t think we need to differ from current concept.
Don’t think USS New Mexico/USS Tennessee is worthy 7.7, and USS Colorado is worth 8.3. New Mexico should be next to current Nevada with 7.0 as it doesn’t have big difference on firepower comparing to Arizona in game, and don’t think Tennessee is needed as it is worse New Mexico. For USS Colorado, having 42(case of USS West Virginia)/45(maunal) reload with 8 gun? I think it should be lower than USS Nevada in War Thunder.
For Lexington I think it will be not better than USS Alaska for same reason. Much weaker armor, no AA, slow speed and slow reload with less gun. For North Carolina and South Dakota I wish one will be after USS Arizona tree and one after USS Nevada tree, and BR to be 8.0 or 7.7(depends on Scharnhorst being 8.0 or 7.7)
Big guns like hoods 15 inches are not accurately modelled for accuracy due to their perceived balance. Big guns can be top dog just right now they aren’t allowed to be. Scharnhorst being an exception due to its more modern armour design and layout most bb in the game could be quite easily dealt with by British 15 inch guns and the ships using the 15 generally have the armour to survive counter fire.
I’m talking rounds per minute is more important than big guns even in case of big guns having better accuracy. Except for Enduring Confrontation, combat range of War Thunder Naval is limited to near 15 km, making almost every battleship’s firepower importance more on number of rounds that can cause damage over penetration of big guns have.
Bismarck would highly be a top dog(which will be even disastrous threat to Yamato inside 10 km), and survivability would be higher importance than firepower, which is going to be standardize in 16~18 inch(+ Littorio’s 15 inch)
I know what you said and I disagreed with you. If the 1t inch guns had the accuracy of the real guns it would take 1 or 2 salvo to kill most opposition at range and the armour of the would hold up for those shots.
Currently ‘damaging’ module is more relying on ‘how far round passed’ than ‘how heavy round is’ if round is bigger than 12 inch. Italian 12.6 inch gives better damage than British 15 inch because it went through deeper than British one.
For armour, no battleship’s armour will hold each others’ shell in current battle range with it’s own thickness. We have to know even Iowa’s armor is RHAe 400 mm LOS, which is enough to be penned with Japanese or American 14 inch. Even Yamato armor(RHAe 500 mm LOS) cannot withstand Bismarck’s 14.96 inch. So adequate angling and module layout would be more important than armour itself.
