BVVD exact quote was, 2025 will see “the logical completion of Bluewater fleet trees by adding the most famous and powerful battleships.” Doesn’t say they won’t fill in gaps later.
“Superior, iconic, big, vast(?) and yottabyte(?)” in the no.6 update is either some kind of terrible translation or a strong hint on something. Or possibly both: the Russian on that was “суперские, абсолютные, большие, верные и яркие” (tr: “super, absolute, big, faithful and bright”). с-а-б-в-я doesn’t really spell anything I can think of as an anagram though. That would tend to at least rule out the “I” being “Iowa” though, as “абсолютные” very definitely starts with an “a.” And there’s no way you get to “vast and yottabyte” from “верные и яркие”, or vice versa, unless you’re just looking for words that start with the same letter. So seems very likely there’s a V(в) and a Y(я) in whatever the answer to this one turns out to be.
That’s interesting, but in a previous CM blog, BVVD answered to this when asked about new countries in naval:
Q: Are there any plans to implement naval for China, Sweden and Israel in 2025?
A: No, in 2025 we plan to focus on the logical completion of Bluewater fleet trees by adding the most famous and powerful battleships. In parallel, we’ll work on the implementation of other types of ships and weapons that are not yet presented in War Thunder.
It’s gonna be Submarines or Anti Ship Missiles or both. But i bet that gonna be in next year summer or at the new year holidays. Both likely be in costal tree first, we already have some boats with ASM they just not implemented on them yet.
ASM can’t change the balance if they start with those boats that we already have, they still be cannon fodder for big ships and can’t hurt them much, and other small ships still outshoot them in seconds while rocket fly.
I don’t count the chap, it’s a 9.0 in the US tree, machbet is far better. They could at least give it the smokeless motor and uncaged seeker that it’s supposed to have.
@Bruce_R1 It’s ‘logical’ completion not ‘total’ completion. So I don’t think battleship line will be closed off in 2025. Just only some Iconic ships like Iowa and Yamato at last update of 2025 and Gaijin saids ‘Congratulation! We make last battleships in game!’ but still, in 2026, while they are no more ‘main’ contents of naval update, they will be still included.
I don’t think H class or Lion class to be added in this game, and there are plenty of famous ships on USA and GB to be added. Not all those ships can be added on this year, so we would still get them on 2026 and later on.
Yes, but note OP (in both languages) specifically says “SIBVY” is coming in “the next (major) update” (в следующем обновлении), not just “in 2025.” It seems implausible that you’d burn whatever sell power you have by putting out Yamato and Bismarck and Iowa all next month, but that is what they said they’d do, apparently.
Btw, since you’re a naval player what would you think of a rework that would make naval more like others trees with lines for types and ranks for advancement rather than size?
Cuz that’s basically what would make me consider playing naval lol
Have to though a little bit as size is quite important in survivability these days…
and same BR of destroyers and battleships needs lots of convenient arcade advantage to destroyers to fight against battleship
Yeah obviously, haven’t played naval but I can only assume the current balance is very different from what it’d be with a chronological tree, this would need a big balance rework to work… But I think they’ll have to do something like that if they ever want to add modern ships (which they’ll have to do at some point if they won’t want naval to die completely)
I guess, but history proved that mobility matters a lot in warship battles, that has the potential to balance bigger and smaller ships imo
But again, I don’t play naval so my only point of reference is history
So, you can have different vehicle types within a mode, but they need different paths to win.
The example is bombers in air or AA in ground. They can often easily be killed by vehicles at much lower BRs if they’re caught out. What allows the mixing to work is because they’re superior in some specific circumstances.
The trouble with naval is against both major threats (ship-to-ship or air-to-ship) battleships are superior to cruisers which are superior to destroyers. So there’s a linear progression.
Really the only way to justify destroyers floating up in BR is if there’s something they can protect the battleships from. The obvious choice here is ASW. That’s why I think we’ll see that long before we see post-war missile boats or carriers (which are optimized for beyond visual range combat that War Thunder currently isn’t really rigged to do).
Unfortunately submarines and by extent ASW will be simplistic to a point where it won’t justify itself.
Last we saw of subs, irrelevant to their time period, the detection mechanics were too arbitrary, and it was alright as a quick event, but not much more.
Naval doesn’t really work in WT because unlike tank or planes it has no depth.
I will not pretend that Air or Ground have any good gameplay, but they offer options, variety, and paths to improvement that are at best severely limited in naval.
Ideally a SS/ASW couple in naval should not mirror the relationship between AA/CAS in ground, because at no point was it ever balanced between one another, and seeing the latest round of addition to AAs, Gaijin is in no hurry to adress the issue either.
Even putting aside the poor gameplay of naval, you have to account for player behaviour, why shouldn’t they mutually farm each other’s DDs until they all give up and then resume killing each other ?
And while the presence of subs will somewhat threaten BBs due to their theoretically imprevisible nature, it remains to be seen wether they will be able to inflict meaningful damage to justify their use. Also in practice SS will be extremely easy to read since you will have their spawn indicated on your maps, and the average player will take the shortest route to your position.
That’s not even touching how the nature of WT makes torpedoes near useless outside of spamming a wall into spawns.
As far as contemporary ship combat goes, WT will never be ready for that.
The initial assessment of the devs that proper ships wouldn’t work in WT turned out to be absolutely bang on, but sunk cost fallacy, we’re getting the Yamato wether we like it or not.
Yep, I remember them saying that anything bigger than a frigate could never really work right… They’re still basically right.
I merely said ASW was the most likely way they could bring destroyers up into tier with battleships some day. Of the options they have if they want to do that, it’s basically the easiest.
Still hard though. ALL the current random battle maps would need to be deepened and modelled with subsurface relief. All the ASW weapon mechanics would need to be redone, and proper hydrophonic mechanics established. But it’d all be doable with dev effort.
Question is at 1.5% of games played and falling (Data Analysis #3: The arrival of Statshark answers some old questions) whether anyone would think it worth the investment now to try. Napalmratte says they’re out of good options after the June BBaganza and I suspect he’s right.
