good lord all those premiums that one guy has shown…
I enjoy the change in pace of naval from the rest of the game, HMS belfast is quite a blast. Dont really get the quarrels with the mode other than some common WT issues and horrific matchmaking times
I’ll play when modern ships gets added
id play for aircraft carriers
writing is on the wall with Yama/Bis/Iowa addition
they won’t address core gameplay
they will only add vehicles and hope
Hey SilentTracker,
First of all, I want to say: your post really resonates with me. I find it extremely sad that someone like you — who has invested so much money, time and passion into Naval — ends up being treated this way and is now turning away. People like you are supposed to be the backbone of a game.
I can absolutely understand that after such ignorance you have no desire to invest another cent. I get the same impression: that Gaijin seems to have a mentality that struggles to engage openly with constructive criticism or to communicate transparently. At times it feels as if they see the community more as a “nuisance” rather than a partner.
And that’s really unfortunate, because the Naval community is already so small that they should value every single player — not alienate them.
I hope that our voices, and your post here, will eventually be heard. That someday someone has the courage to talk to us and save this mode rather than letting it quietly die.
Thank you, in any case, for taking the time to express this so openly and clearly. You are surely speaking for many others as well.
Cheers,
Bullwyff
These ones are already in-game.
This quite literally puts a box around a target.
There is not and has never been “squinting” in RB modes; You are thinking of simulator modes, which naval does not have at this time.
Naval arcade aiming has been improved and is actually a good change from the horrific mixed system it was prior.
Before the aiming change arcade and RB were effectively identical gameplay outside of reloading torpedoes; I know this because I actually played both.
It didn’t have enough disparity to warrant playing AB when RB was objectively superior.
Edit: As shown here realistic battles aiming was once part of arcade battles: It was a clunky and horrible system.
Of course anyone that claims SilentTracker’s bug report I’m using as evidence for my statements is a lie might be baiting.
More evidence of the old system:
The only way to play naval is to buy your way in, with either premiums or battle pass. I think that’s a problem. I’m willing to grind coastal ships but there aren’t many players at the low BR. It’s basically pay-to-play!
EDIT #2: I see your edits trying to make it sound like you were not doubling down on misinformation. Good news though! I saved your original post, I had a feeling you would try and do something shady like that without admitting your statement was incorrect. I hope you can just admit you were wrong, instead of trying to edit your post and hide your arrogance.
This statement is so incorrect and/or such a blatant lie that it doesn’t even deserve a explanation of how wrong it is. I’ve seen you post some wild/incorrect statements, but this one has to take the cake.
Then this means you know that you are willfully lying. Thank you for admitting that you should know better than to post such a wildly inaccurate lie.
EDIT #1: There is a small chance that maybe you had “Realistic Aiming” turned on for Arcade, in which case you are just ignorant on how Arcade Aiming and Realistic Aiming differed before the change this year. However, even if this is the case, I have no patience for such bold and self righteous ignorance.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/4OHnVjZwifFf
Here you can see him setting the test drive to Arcade:
@ 8:58 “So if you are aiming in Arcade…”
And here @ 9:24 you can see the the UI for Naval Arcade aiming, before the changes:
Naval Arcade and Naval Realistic had completely different aiming systems. UNLESS you turned on “Realistic Aiming” in your settings, in which case for you it would be the same in both. However, that was not Naval Arcade aiming. Just admit that you are wrong so you can stop spreading misinformation.
no one is suggesting it… everyone like the classic battleships.
I dont want to be that guy, but naval simply isnt that popular, as it is apparent from statshark data.
Could introduction of some of these bug fixes bring in more naval players?
Definetively.
But i find it highly unlikely it would suddenly dethrone ground realistic as most played mode.
That’s just wishful thinking - Naval wargaming has never been very popular in any form - tabletop, boardgames, card games or computer games.
And I still have no problem with the current arcade aiming system, or with queue times or number of bots - as far as I can tell if anything there ARE more players in most games now than before Leviathans - it might have changed in the last week - I’m sunning myself in the topics at the moment and not gaming at all… will know when I get back home in 2 days - but I don’t’ expect it to have done so.
The funny thing is, we already have these kinds of missions. The objective is to destroy AI ships. We even have two variants of them:
And almost every player ignores these objectives. Especially the AI ships (not to be confused with AI bots) are easy to kill, but they offer poor rewards.
To be honest, these are the worst missions in the game. When both teams ignore the objectives, the battle just turns into a team deathmatch and often ends at the 25-minute mark because the mission timer runs out, which is generally fine.
The issue arises when someone actually focuses on the objectives. That player can easily win the battle, but they get terrible rewards and everyone else suffers from a shorter battle (a large part of the reward system is tied to time spent alive, so players want longer battles).
Most players have already figured out that going for objectives simply isn’t worth it. The game currently is designed around PVP (that’s where the rewards are).
Technically, the devs could redesign the entire reward system, make battles shorter and give big rewards for following objectives (and less for PVP). But I’m not sure if that would be a good change. Just look at how badly objective-based rewards work in the Helicopter PvE game mode, where players who are too slow or just use weaker helicopters, can’t even get the score. The fastest or luckiest players with the best helicopters just rush the objectives and grab all the points. I really don’t want the entire game to become like that. It’s honestly just frustrating to play most of the time. I strongly suggest playing a few Helicopter PvE battles to see how that kind of reward structure works in practice.
We already have AI fleets and harbor attacks. The devs even tried heavy defences, and it simply didn’t work well. In practice, this was just more AI shooting. The base defences were hard to destroy, gave terrible rewards, and were especially annoying for coastal vessels. If you sailed too close to them in a small vessel, you would be dead in seconds.
The idea sounded good on paper, it supposed to be a cooperation between Coastal and Bluewater vessels. Coastal vessels were blocked by AI defences until ships destroyed them, so boats could move in and capture zones. But in reality, ship players just ignored the defences, so the whole concept fell apart. Eventually, the devs removed all the defences.
As shown above, cooperation doesn’t really work in War Thunder.
We have had some cool Naval events, but players usually get bored of them quickly. They also don’t offer anything particularly valuable (I got my profile picture from one of those events, but that’s about it).
Typically, devs work for months on an event, release it for one or two weeks, and just a few days in, almost no one plays it anymore. Because players prefer to play standard game modes, where they actually can progress.
These event usually have huge balance issues, low rewards, and confused players who don’t know what to do. Even if events were on a set schedule (like one week every month), that wouldn’t fix the main issue: the pressure the game puts on players. Many of us are constantly trying to spade or research new vehicles, complete battle pass (daily tasks and BP challenges), and progress in other events (for decals, camos, profile pictures, etc.). A lot of players simply don’t have time for additional events.
Even something like Tank Football, which I personally really enjoy, I don’t get much time to play. Because when it returns, the grind in the game doesn’t stop: events with vehicles are still running, battle pass still needs progress, squadron activity still needs to be done. This game is a constant grind, and there’s no breathing room.
So honestly, I think War Thunder is already overwhelming as it is. And I’m really surprised how many people keep asking for more events.
No. Many people don’t. No wonder why naval has such little players lol
but what BR will those modern ship be if they even be ever added…
Idk BR15.0? doesn’t matter modern stuff is just more fun for me
Hi Poul,
first of all, thank you for your detailed post — thoughtful and well‑reasoned replies like yours are rare and very valuable to this discussion. You’ve raised several important points that I’d like to address one by one.
“Convoy missions already exist, with AI ships (moving or in the harbor), but most players ignore them because the rewards are poor.”
Exactly — and that is one of the core issues: players ignore these objectives because they’re poorly designed, poorly rewarded, and unattractive.
The idea of “escort or attack a convoy” is actually good — but right now it feels like a tacked‑on side quest with no real relevance.
Solution: These missions should be designed so the entire team benefits, not just the fastest player. For example: team‑wide rewards, shared progress bars for damage, and simultaneous rewards for both PvP and PvE contributions.
“When someone focuses on the objectives, it shortens the match and makes it worse for everyone.”
Here again, the problem is not the concept but the reward structure.
Solution: Missions should either not end the match prematurely, but instead grant bonuses like tickets, respawns, or boosts, or the shorter match should still fairly reward everyone.
Right now players feel punished for completing objectives — and that needs to be turned around.
“Helicopter PvE already shows how frustrating it is when the fastest players grab all the points.”
That’s true — Helicopter PvE is a negative example of poor design. But that’s not because the concept of PvE is bad — it’s because it was built as a competition instead of a true cooperative experience.
Solution: Damage sharing, time bonuses, tiered rewards for contribution (not just kills), and AI spawns that don’t simply run away and get farmed by one or two players.
“Harbor attacks and heavy defenses didn’t work well, were deadly for coastal vessels, poorly rewarded, and ignored.”
Once again, the core idea — forcing cooperation between coastal and bluewater ships — is actually very good.
It failed because of the execution: the AI defenses were too strong, too frustrating, and not worth the effort.
Solution: Layered defenses with weak points, tactical options (like smoke, mine clearing), and rewards that justify the effort.
“Cooperative scenarios don’t really work in War Thunder.”
They could work — if they weren’t just PvP matches with some NPC sprinkles.
Solution: A proper mode with a clear focus, good briefing, meaningful objectives, and attractive rewards — instead of being suffocated by the current PvP grind.
“Events already exist, but they get boring quickly, are badly balanced, not worth it, and overwhelm players with all the grinding.”
I agree — current events are not the answer.
But that’s because they’re short‑term, poorly coordinated, and have no lasting impact.
Solution: Not an “event,” but a permanent alternative with a proper place in the game, well‑integrated into progression, with adjusted grind.
Not an extra burden — but another way to play. Not “on top,” but “instead.”
Everything you describe shows me not that the ideas themselves are bad, but that their implementation so far has been poor.
Good concepts have been put on the table, but not followed through: maps, rewards, briefings, balancing, role distribution — all insufficient.
And then people wonder why nobody plays them.
That’s exactly what my appeal is about: addressing these issues instead of writing off the concepts themselves.
Not “more events” as we know them — but a proper, well‑designed PvE/Coop mode that works and is fun.
Thanks again for your contribution — I hope we can keep this discussion going.
Regards,
Bullwyff
I would genuinely grind naval more (both coastal and bluewater) but the que times are so so insufferable, at that point I might aswell try rush and research the Type 99 so I don’t have to do a mad dash to unlock the Ho-ri production before it’s removed.
Alvis was right, it was exactly the same mechanics for aiming for both modes under the hood before, really just a different way of expressing it through the U/I. It was why it was so easy to swap over for most people before, often from game to game depending on which was the easier dailies.
The current NAB aiming is meant to be “kiddie pool” for the real thing, I get it, and I’m not interested in playing that for the same reason I generally avoid Ground AB. Nothing against the people who enjoy it, they just lost me as a player for that one mode is all. Now when I play NAB, I feel my RB aiming skills slipping: it’s causing you to forget the muscle memory of RB by doing all the work for you. I feel the same way about the green crosshair in Ground AB. Once you know or can figure by instinct how ballistic arcs work, I think you should move up from both modes and stay up to keep sharp. (And yes, I’d say the same about Air AB, but I dislike TDM in any game just as a general concept, so I can’t move to Air RB and enjoy myself, sadly).
Anyway, a little off-topic. To the OP, I think NRB is in a really good place right now. AA is fair, damage model is good, and queueing in both modes was largely resolved with the March changes. At 6 minutes it gives you a game guaranteed no matter how many are in queue, can’t really ask for more than that for a less popular mode. It’s still a fun mode to play when you want to listen to music and bank a little SL and I think people should try both modes out and see which they prefer, if only for making the battlepasses easier.
No, he said “identical” not “under the hood”. Which is still a gross misrepresentation of the differences between the two. In RB you had to continually manually adjust the distance, by hand. Reguardless of the “math” going on behind the scenes in the code, they were not “identical” as he so blatantly misrepresented.
Screenshot from Alvis’s original incorrect statement, before he made multiple edits to try and make it appear that he didn’t post such blatantly incorrect information initially:
I have no patience for a person who refuses find/review the facts presented, and instead tries to gaslight me/everyone else instead of just saying “oh yeah, oops, they were not identical, there were some differences” etc.
Editing his original post to make it seem like he made a reasonable statement all along is gaslighting. Trying to make it appear like I made something out of nothing, instead of him just making a new statement and/or edit, and leaving his original incorrect statement there, is gaslighting.
He also reported my posts to try and avoid facing the facts and/or having a reasonable discussion. That is why my post has the tone it does, as a response to his gaslighting and abuse of the report system.
Cheers.
Hopefully this patch wakes them up to the realization more ships wont save the mode and a serious complete overhaul of everything is needed.
For now I’ve decided to give up on naval completely until that happens and ive completely ground out germany and half of russia.
I’d like to see better maps, and game modes that incentivise using different classes of ships beyond using coastal to cap in high tier domination matches.
