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).
Yamato facing 9.7 jets, more like Lmaomato.
Yes, aircraft and naval br’s would have to be de-coupled.
But put Yamato at 8.0 and look how hard its going to shit on everything else.
They wont be.
Then Yamato is going to stomp the living daylight out of everything, as will Soyuz.
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)
The devs have said completed designs approved but not laid down will be used when needed in naval for balance and filling trees
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.
Pretty sure the B-65 will NOT be in the game. Definiely no he A-150. There’s hardly information on the former, none on the latter
BRs dont make sense,there are huge gaps in every line and that will only incrrase wait times and make lobbies full of vehicles of 2-3classes.
Certain br placements are also bad. Amagi on 7.7 with poor stalingrad? Iowa would wipe both h39 and g3. Nelson lower than vanguard? The grouping idea is good but far fetched atm. The BRs are just bad.
All the 15 has to do is hit an ammo rack, it has the pen to do that and would only take 1 to 2 volleys to achieve it on almost every battle ship in game if it had the accuracy to do so. Dps isn’t going to stop that.
DPS stands more in case of ammo rack as it will has more chance of hitting ammo rack in same time than slower reloading guns. Thats what Scharnhorst doing now isn’t it
My point remains, a single volley or 2 that detonates a ship will still kill faster then death of a thousand cuts.
Is there any point of advantage by big gun if even small gun can kill detonate ship with single volley or 2 and small gun has better DPM?
Which destroyer or cruiser is one hotting hood at Max range (reliably) ?
We are talking about Battleship’s smaller gun and bigger gun as this thread is about battleship. Why are you out of point of this thread?