It was always like this. You either got ammo racked in first salvo or your crew slowly depleted.
True, but with the recent changes it’s even worse now. And it makes no sense. Why should you lose 5% of crew (or combat effectiveness or whatever Gaijin thinks of it has) every time you get hit in the same spot.
1 Like
Yes.
1 Like
While using the IJN MUTSU, I lost 44% crew in 1 salvo, I wasn’t ammo racked. It was either SAP OR HE.
2 Likes
I was poking into naval before the patch, was doing decent enough with the new ship from the battle pass.
Now I cant even land a hit before getting one shot.
1 Like
Crew is going there to fix stuff? You can do the same with tanks when shooting into driver position until there is just two guys left…
Well they aren’t going to run in there like lemmings until there is no one to run the ship.
Yeah, to fix stuff…
Vana is saying, they are not going to go in there blindly in groups if the fire is out of control just not how ships work.
There is a fire crew for ships and buckets, meant to help deal with the fire, however, if the fire gets out of control it is no longer possible to stop it. If the Fire Systems fail due to damage then your ship is essentially lost with all hands or the ship has been evacuated. A really good example is the HMAS Sydney and the SMS Kormoran
The Sydney went down with all crew, and no survivors however a couple kilometers away sank due to sustaining damage from the previous fight, the crew in the engine deck all being gone. It eventually lead to the engine no longer having any power->Not fixable->Ship eventually sank.
1 Like
Since the old forum is going to disappear soon, just a reminder the devs warned us this is what it would look like in 2016, before the closed beta, and basically begged us, in their poorly translated way, not to insist on them bringing in big ships. Scarper’s post on this reposted here for posterity (bold text is my own emphasis):
Spoiler
We have finally announced the introduction of Naval forces in War Thunder and we are receiving a lot of questions at the moment. The most popular question is “Why do you not plan to introduce player-controlled Capital ships? ”.
Let us clarify this a little - the Naval part of the game is in the early testing stage and players haven’t seen what it actually is yet, plus some things change during a test - with your help and feedback we will together define the future of naval battle development in War Thunder.
I’ll start with an important clarification: in the video you saw the naval combat at the testing stage. More to any player lucky enough to not touch the existing ships in the game, but now we have something to be proud of, and we are preparing for the closed beta to get it to you as soon as possible. However, it hasn’t reached that yet and we are already beginning to gather your impressions, comments, and of course, ideas, we can all then, together determine the path that will continue to develop to become, a player managed fleet in War Thunder.
For ease of discussion, I will divide the explanation on the main points, each of which we’ll later be able to discuss this topic.
Several reasons why we are focusing on the “smaller” fleet.
1.How to play?
It is clear that game play for very big ships is different from game play in tanks or aircraft. Such a huge and unwieldy ship must have an appropriate battlefield and adapted mechanics. Cruisers can easily battle against other cruisers, what will make a head to head battle until the first hit, where the hit ship will just die slowly without any chance to strike back. No health points, no instant repair, only big ship which slowly sinks to the bottom and a player that can only watch while his ship is destroyed.
This game play will bring a dubious pleasure, but it is realistic, because large ships are destroyed in this way. What about action in the locations, they need to be equal to fighting units - the players need time to re-group the ships and prepare for battle. But with dozens of minutes convergence alone, during which everything could end even before it begun - some wild hit from a distant gun, without aimed fire as there is no line of sight, yet the defeat is already quite real, and it’s over.
As for interaction with other types of vehicles, here-in lies some further difficulties. In locations that are suitable for the interaction of different types of vehicles, these ships don’t just rotate on the spot so they are unusually vulnerable just to small torpedo boats. At the same time we can not afford to change the characteristics of these ships, we can not increase their speed and agility, as then it will be required of the lighter vehicles also. What is the outcome of these changes? Totally unrealistic battles, to the extent that a generic bomber will simply not be able to catch the ship, such a boost would be needed to the characteristics of the ship to allow it, for example “a cruiser” to have slim chance in escaping from under the enemy shots.
The main issue is, Assume that the average time of battle in WT will be about average time of battle in real life but with a wee bit subtracted because our players dont want to keep their vehicles in one piece. You can think of the Battle time of “each” vehicle from the first shot fired, or the time that the enemy was sighted - This is also true for air battles, it is true for tank battle and it will be true for naval battles IF we are determined to keep the physics and damage model reasonably close to realistic. So, at sea, with higher tonnage, the truth is that the average battle is MUCH longer than an hour, even for 1-2 vs 1-2 ships. whilst in real life, it never was shorter than 20 minutes - so it will be in WT. When 20 minutes is longer than average battle in any mode, it is still OK for Naval Forces, But an average of 2-3 hours for a battle is generally more than average player will subscribe to. We made it and we played it - but you do not have to trust us. Just use common sense - realistic physics with reasonable scenarios will cause realistic battle duration’s (or maybe a bit quicker, but this is only about a players interest in getting to the action quicker, taking risks, not something else)
Aircraft, tanks, bang - whack, bang - whack caboom, Ships, bang, …bang…bang…(silence) splash splash, splash (incoming) etc etc, it isn’t the same, not by any stretch of the imagination. I see Battle of Britain used as an example of a long air battle, it wasn’t a single engagement, battle of the bulge - again wasn’t a single engagement - aircraft, tanks, SMALL ships - short lifespan in terms of single combat in our game, large, heavily armoured capital ships, long lifespan in single engagements (unless you are really lucky like in rl) Nope at this stage it just doesn’t make sense.
2.Mechanics
Even small motor gunboats could have a crew of more than 30 men and this is not a small number, with our “craving” for realism large ships will not fit into the dynamics of game battles. Even huge vessels are extremely vulnerable to aircraft and they had very complex tactics, including reconnaissance, protection, long range combat and even rules to their movement do not comply with the gameplay - fighting for frags and rewards.
Capital ships move so slow that they cannot dodge ANY hits at the distance they are fighting at. The only possible solutions are either boost their speed x5 at least so they can dodge or limit the shooting distance. But even if we boost the speed x5 (making it equal to the slowest aircraft) that won’t solve the problem of shooting beyond visible range.but still it is possible that one ship can destroy another with a lucky shot - e.g.Bismarck vs. Hood. Two shots fired, battle lasted 30 minutes, hood sank in 3
Maps could be made bigger but that would involve hours and hours of travelling only to get taken out in the first few minutes of contact, there are a few of us who would be happy to do that, but there are just too many that wouldn’t.
3.Economy
Ships DO take longer to sink, even one lucky shot can take a whole ship out of action, without destroying or damaging critical modules. Even with critical damage it would take hours for a capital ship to sink. Thus without simplifying damage model to a HP system or the like there will be no game play at all
How can you count kills?
In reality destroying one capital ship could take hours and hours, and, sometimes seconds - in case of ammunition explosion. With smaller vehicles it is clear - destroying an enemy brings greater rewards, damaging an enemy also brings rewards or can take several hits to destroy an enemy. With ships that have crews of over 1000 men for example, it is much more complex. It is exactly the same for the economy and research and development - even if we ignore big crews with a great variety of functions and qualifications and hundreds of different modules, there is still the question “how many millions of “lions” should a torpedo bomber receive that has taken down a capital ship with a lucky strike?
For such battles we would require a significantly redesigned game mechanic - a completely different gameplay.
4 Imbalance in Nations
As we know, and let’s be honest about this, not all nations had a heavy warship fleet that could match the opponents at the time. There would be nothing up front that could appear in the development of the tree and compete on equal terms with their opponents unless we use small ships to begin with.
We aim not only to give you the very existence of warships in War Thunder, but also to create highly interesting gameplay as well, which would fit into the overall concept of the game, allow each player the participation of all types of equipment in a single battle. The US, Great Britain and Japan had indisputable superiority over the USSR in the number of aircraft carriers, which immediately deprives the USSR of this class of vehicle from the beginning - and yet it happened not because of the technical backwardness of the Soviet Union, but for the simple reason: the Soviet Union had not experienced a great need for these ships, because the main fighting took place both on land and in the air. The same can be said for Germany, their naval power was not the greatest at the beginning of our time frame. But how do we explain that to the many players across the world who still want to be the best? Make no mistake, many players use the soviet and German nations in game.
At the same time, small class ships were common to all nations, and here they are just perfect for most of the current vehicles represented in War Thunder lines of development.
5.Specialty
One more issue is that vessels such as battleships were used very selectively, battles lasted for hours and even days and often ended with an enemy retreat or not being destroyed. Moreover ships such as the “Yamato” or “Missouri” were unique in their class, and definitely, players wouldn’t like to wait in the queue because the single e.g. “Yamato” for the current battle has already been taken, or dozen of battleships in one battle without a supporting fleet will be a clumsy and easy target for aircraft.
Most importantly - CBT is your chance to share your ideas that may affect the naval battle development process in War Thunder, in reality this is quite a leap for our game and we should remember that the reality of ship combat is very rarely reflected accurately in any game, join the test, give us your feedback and suggestions and we will create a mode that many will enjoy, not just a few!
In summary, this isn’t a definitive no, but an invitation to help “Steer” the development so as many of us as possible can get enjoyment out of this unusual game mode, you know it makes sense.
3 Likes
Big issue, it should have still been their call to not add them, we should not be the reason to still add them, they are the devs, and we are a community. This is the difference, just cause we want it. That doesn’t mean they should add it.
Also old forum going away what? didn’t they lock it and change the link to the old forum? Since it is essentially a giant archive of vehicle suggestions etc etc etc/
Everything gets deleted two years after the launch of the new forums.
It hasn’t been two years yet. Old Forums are being shut down in 2025. I wouldn’t count on anything being there if you want to keep it after this Christmas.
Unless I see the proof I press X to doubt.
I retract my statement and wanna say how stupid/vague that response is.
Anyway, this is old history. After three days of event, and about 40 trouble-free games (AB/RB, all <5.0, US/EU) I really think the post people should be looking at is this one from last week (underlining added):
- The number of shell fragments from ship guns has been increased. Previously, due to technical limitations, the number of fragments that a projectile was capable of producing was lower than it should have been. This was compensated by an increase in the destructive power of some fragments in the nose and side dispersion cones.
- In a naval battle, when several thousand shells simultaneously fly and collide with objects, the calculation of this number of fragments affected performance and greatly reduced FPS.
* Improved processing makes it possible to increase the maximum number of projectile fragments to three thousand, and the calculation of interaction with objects can be made even faster. - There are fewer blind spots between the flight sectors, and the density of the sectors has increased.
- At the same time, the maximum possible fragmentation damage of a projectile remains the same. The distribution scheme for damage from fragments has changed. Projectiles do not cause more damage than before, but have become better and are more likely to fully deliver their potential damage.
- In a naval battle, when several thousand shells simultaneously fly and collide with objects, the calculation of this number of fragments affected performance and greatly reduced FPS.
Given that no one has reported any problems playing on low BRs, or consoles so much, and that the drops seem to be of individual players, not whole dumps of games (there’s always a baseline chance of a game failure), we should consider the possibility that increasing the projectile count to 3000, in order to make ship damage work (in order to make even bigger ships with bigger AA batteries work). “Improved processing” (server side? or are they talking about how we must all have gotten better video cards and CPUs by now?) not actually working as expected is the kind of thing that would produce the game crashes people are seeing.
1 Like
Honest question - what should be the main way to take out ships if not “not an HP bar but technically an HP bar” crew %? Flooding?
This is by far the worst update I’ve ever seen. Everything across the borad has been made worse. I’m getting a magazine explosion almost every game and in some cases every ship in a game. I had an unrepairable breach on my Crusier from a patrol boat and continued the game with 26% boyancy. My battles used to last the entire game, now I’m lucky if it last 10min. Might have to put the game away till the next update, it’s simply not enjoyable anymore.
5 Likes