Discussion: Factors Affecting Queue Times in Naval RB

Tubby_Vermin · November 21, 2025, 6:53pm

Hello everyone

I’d like to open a serious discussion about queue times in Naval RB. This isn’t about saying “only three people play naval” or making throwaway comments, I’m looking for constructive debate and shared experiences. Please keep responses thoughtful and avoid trolling.

What do you think is the biggest factor behind long Naval RB queue times?

Nation vs Nation matchmaking imbalances
Squad size and composition (solo vs squads)
Time of day / regional server activity
Ongoing events in other modes
Multiple game modes splitting the player base
Naval’s niche status and slower development

0 voters

Nation vs Nation Matchmaking Imbalances (Option 1)

Queue times in Naval RB aren’t determined solely by player numbers, they’re heavily influenced by the matchmaking rules designed to preserve nation balance. Unlike Ground or Air RB, where nations can be paired more freely, Naval RB prioritizes maintaining a “mixed” composition. As a result, the system becomes far more sensitive to uneven population distribution*

Balance Requirements

The matchmaker is built to prevent one-sided nation matchups. If a surge of players from a single nation occurs (for instance, a wave of US destroyers entering the queue), the system must hold until sufficient opponents from other nations are available (1). This is why queues can stall even with dozens of players online, if they’re concentrated in the same nation, balance rules delay the match (That’s my theory anyways) *

*reworded these 2 sections as this was confusing many people

Implication: Players often perceive this as “empty queues,” but in reality, the system is holding them back to prevent unfair mirror matches (2).
Community frustration: Many argue that strict nation balance is unnecessary in a mode with already low population, and loosening these rules could reduce wait times (1).

Popularity Differences

Certain nations dominate naval play. The US and USSR remain consistently popular because they have strong lineups at most BRs, including competitive destroyers and cruisers (3). In contrast, nations like Italy or Japan have fewer ships and weaker lineups at mid‑tiers, discouraging players from grinding them (4).

Result: The matchmaker struggles to find opponents for dominant nations, while weaker nations sit underrepresented (3).
Cycle effect: Because fewer people play minor nations, queues for those nations become even slower, reinforcing their unpopularity (4).

Tier‑Specific Issues

Naval RB suffers from “BR dead zones,” where viable ships are sparse. For example:

2.3–3.0 BR: Limited destroyer options, leading to long waits or forced up tiers (5).
5.0–5.7 BR: Heavy cruisers dominate, but only a handful of nations have competitive ships here (5).
High tiers (6.0+): Battleships and battlecruisers are concentrated in specific nations, making balanced matchmaking extremely difficult (6).

This creates bottlenecks where players either wait endlessly or are up tiered into matches they cannot realistically compete in (6).

Minimum Team Sizes

The system enforces minimum team sizes (often 4v4). At off‑peak hours, this requirement becomes a major barrier (1). Even if three players from one nation and two from another are queued, the match won’t start until the minimum threshold is met.

Practical effect: Off‑peak queues can collapse entirely, leaving players staring at timers for 20+ minutes (2).
Comparison: Ground RB can start matches with uneven nation representation, but Naval RB’s stricter rules make it less flexible (1).

The Vicious Cycle

All of these factors combine into a feedback loop:

Popular nations dominate queues (3).
Minor nations struggle to find matches (4).
Players abandon minor nations due to slow queues (4).
Matchmaking becomes even more skewed (2).

This cycle discourages experimentation and keeps naval gameplay concentrated in a few nations, which ultimately harms the health of the mode (6).

Takeaway

Nation vs Nation matchmaking is one of the most significant structural barriers to healthy Naval RB queues. While intended to preserve fairness, it often backfires by amplifying population imbalances and creating dead zones at specific BRs. Many in the community argue that loosening nation restrictions or allowing mixed‑nation teams could dramatically improve queue times without destroying balance (1)(2).

Sources

Squad Size & Composition (Option 2)

Squad size is one of the most direct and measurable factors affecting queue times in Naval RB. Unlike Ground or Air RB, where large squads can be absorbed more flexibly, Naval RB’s smaller player base and stricter nation balancing rules make squad matchmaking far more complex (1).

Full 4‑Man Squads

Players consistently report that queuing as a full squad of four can result in extremely long waits, often 20–30 minutes or more (2). The reason is structural: the system must either find another full squad to oppose you or balance your group against multiple solos and smaller squads without breaking nation balance.

Community evidence: Forum threads from mid‑2025 confirm that 4‑man squads are disproportionately punished by the matchmaker, especially at mid‑tier BRs where population is already thin (2).
Practical effect: Many players avoid full squads entirely, even though squad play is one of the most enjoyable aspects of Naval RB (3).

Two Pairs of 2

Splitting into two smaller squads is widely acknowledged as a workaround. Reports show that two 2‑man squads can enter matches in under 5 minutes, compared to the 30+ minutes often faced by full squads (4).

Why it works: Smaller squads are easier to slot into matches, since they can be distributed across teams without requiring perfect symmetry (4).
Example: Your own test (4 minutes 44 seconds) aligns with community findings, reinforcing that the system handles pairs more efficiently (4).

Solo Players vs Squads

Solo players are the easiest for the matchmaker to place. They can be slotted into either team without complex balancing (5). Larger squads, however, require precise nation and BR alignment, which slows the process.

Result: Solo players often enjoy faster queues, while squad players, especially those in larger groups… face longer waits (5).
Community frustration: This creates tension between players who want to play socially and those who want faster matches. Many argue that squad play should be incentivized, not penalized (6).

Mixed‑Nation Squads

Another complication arises when squads include ships from different nations. The matchmaker must avoid unfair stacking (e.g., three US destroyers and one USSR cruiser on the same team). This adds another layer of restriction, further delaying matches (7).

Evidence: Steam discussions from 2024–2025 highlight that mixed‑nation squads often wait longer than single‑nation squads, even when smaller in size (7).
Implication: Players are indirectly pressured to squad with the same nation lineup, reducing flexibility and fun (7).

The Social Impact

The squad size issue is not just mechanical, it affects the social fabric of Naval RB. Friends who want to play together often face disproportionately long waits, discouraging group play (8). This undermines one of War Thunder’s core appeals: cooperative teamwork.

Community sentiment: Many players feel that squad penalties are unfair, especially in a mode already struggling with population (8).
Suggested fixes: Proposals include loosening nation restrictions for squads, allowing mixed‑nation teams more freely, or introducing AI ships to fill gaps when full squads are waiting too long (9).

Takeaway

Squad size is a critical bottleneck in Naval RB matchmaking. While solo players enjoy relatively smooth queues, larger squads are disproportionately punished, discouraging cooperative play (5)(6). This issue highlights the need for systemic changes to make squad play viable without sacrificing queue times (9).

Sources for Squad Size & Composition:-

Time of Day & Geographical Location (Option 3)

Player activity levels vary throughout the day and across regions, and Naval RB is especially sensitive to these fluctuations because of its smaller player base compared to Ground or Air RB.

Peak vs Off‑Peak

Peak hours (evenings/weekends): Queue times are generally shorter, averaging 3–7 minutes when more players are online (1). This is when most naval players log in, particularly in EU regions.
Off‑peak hours: Queue times can stretch beyond 10 minutes or fail entirely (2). Reports from players in NA and Asia note that during mornings or work hours, queues sometimes collapse, leaving players unable to find matches even after extended waits.
Implication: Naval RB’s smaller population magnifies these fluctuations far more than Ground or Air RB, which maintain healthier numbers across all time zones (3).

Regional Servers

EU servers: Typically the most populated, offering the shortest queues (1). Players often recommend queuing in EU regions if possible.
NA servers: Frequently underpopulated, leading to longer waits. Community threads highlight that NA naval queues can be inconsistent, especially outside peak evening hours (2).
Asia servers: Sparse populations make queues nearly infinite at times. Reports from 2025 describe Asia servers as “almost impossible” for naval matchmaking outside prime hours (4).
Takeaway: Regional disparities are sharper in Naval RB than in other modes, since the player base is already niche.

Cross‑Region Matchmaking

Expanded search parameters: Many players enable cross‑region matchmaking to reduce wait times (5). This can help fill queues faster, but introduces ping issues that degrade gameplay quality.
Ping impact: High latency affects aiming precision and ship maneuvering, which are critical in naval combat (5).
Community sentiment: Some argue that Gaijin should allow simultaneous queuing across multiple naval modes (Arcade + RB) to mitigate this issue (6).

Amplified Effect in Naval RB

Ground and Air RB maintain healthy populations across regions, so time‑zone differences are less disruptive. Naval RB, however, has a smaller and more fragile player base, meaning regional and temporal disparities hit much harder (3).

Result: Queue times in Naval RB are highly inconsistent, with players reporting smooth matches at peak but “near‑infinite” waits off‑peak (2).
Cycle effect: Long off‑peak queues discourage players from trying naval casually, further shrinking the population outside prime hours (4).

Takeaway

Time of day and geographical location are critical factors in Naval RB queue times. Peak hours and EU servers provide relatively stable matchmaking, but NA and Asia often struggle, especially off‑peak. Cross‑region matchmaking can help, but at the cost of ping and gameplay quality. These disparities are magnified in Naval RB due to its niche status, making queue times far more fragile than in other modes (1)(2)(3)(4)(5).

Sources for time of day and Geographical location :-

Ongoing Events (Option 4)

Events in other modes can pull players away from naval battles and because Naval RB already has a smaller player base, these shifts in activity are felt much more sharply than in Ground or Air RB.

Tank and Plane Events

Dominant focus: Major tank and Plane events often drain naval queues almost completely, as the majority of players switch to grinding Ground/ Air RB for exclusive rewards (1).
Community evidence: Forum threads from 2025 highlight that during large tank events, naval queues can stretch beyond 15–20 minutes or fail entirely (2).
Implication: Naval RB becomes sidelined whenever tank content is prioritized, reinforcing its niche status.

Seasonal Events

Holiday/Anniversary shifts: Seasonal events such as anniversaries, holidays, or special operations dramatically shift player activity (3). Players chase limited‑time rewards in more popular modes, leaving naval queues underpopulated.
Example: During War Thunder’s 2025 anniversary event, naval queues were reported to collapse in NA and Asia regions, while Ground RB remained healthy (4).
Result: Naval RB suffers disproportionately because its population is already fragile.

Reward‑Driven Behavior

Lower naval rewards: RP and SL gains in naval are significantly weaker compared to air or ground battles (5). This makes naval less attractive during event periods, when players want maximum efficiency for grinding.
Community frustration: Many players argue that naval rewards should be adjusted to match other modes, otherwise naval will continue to be abandoned during events (6).
Cycle effect: Because naval is the least efficient grind option, players prioritize tanks or planes, further shrinking naval queues whenever events are active.

Takeaway

Events in other modes siphon players away from naval battles. Tank / Plane events dominate player attention, seasonal events shift activity dramatically, and naval’s weaker rewards make it the least efficient grind option during event periods. This imbalance indirectly worsens queue times, leaving Naval RB marginalized whenever major events are running (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6).

Sources for Ongoing Events:-

Multiple Game Modes (Option 5)

War Thunder currently offers six different game modes, dividing the player base. This division is especially problematic for Naval RB, which already has a smaller population compared to Ground and Air RB.

Mode Dilution

Smaller pool: Naval RB’s player base is naturally smaller, and with six modes available, the pool is diluted further (1).
Community evidence: Forum discussions from 2025 highlight that even when naval players are online, many prefer Arcade or Enduring Confrontation, leaving RB queues underpopulated (2).
Implication: Naval RB suffers disproportionately from dilution because it lacks the critical mass of players that tanks and planes enjoy.

Competition for Attention

Tanks and planes dominate: Ground RB and Air RB attract the majority of players due to their larger tech trees, faster progression, and more frequent updates (3).
Result: Naval RB remains niche, with fewer incentives to draw casual players.
Cycle effect: Because tanks and planes dominate attention, naval queues shrink further, reinforcing its marginal status (4).

Queue Balancing

Matchmaker juggling: The system must balance players across all six modes, which slows naval matchmaking disproportionately (5).
Evidence: Steam discussions note that naval queues often stall even when other modes are healthy, because the matchmaker prioritizes filling larger pools first (6).
Takeaway: Unlike tanks or planes, naval lacks crossover appeal, few players switch into it casually, meaning its population is more fragile when spread thin (5)(6).

Takeaway

War Thunder’s six game modes dilute the player base. Ground RB and Air RB dominate, while Naval RB remains niche. Even when naval players are online, many prefer Arcade or Enduring Confrontation, further splitting the pool. The matchmaker must juggle across all modes, slowing naval queues disproportionately. Unlike tanks or planes, naval lacks crossover appeal, making its population more fragile when spread thin (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6).

Sources for Mutliple games modes:-

Naval as a Niche Mode (Option 6)

This issue feels more relevant to Naval RB than other modes because naval has always been the least popular branch of War Thunder. Its smaller player base, slower development cycle, and weaker incentives amplify queue time problems far more than tanks or planes.

Smaller Player Base

Confirmed: Naval RB consistently has the lowest population compared to Ground and Air RB. Reports from 2025 show only 5–10 players queuing at times on NA servers (1).
Implication: With such a small pool, even minor fluctuations in player activity can collapse queues entirely.
Community frustration: Many players describe naval as “dead” outside peak EU hours, reinforcing its niche status (2).

Slower Development

Content disparity: Naval has not received the same level of content updates as tanks and planes. While ground and air regularly get new tech trees, mechanics, and events, naval updates are fewer and slower (3).
Evidence: Forum threads highlight that naval mechanics such as damage modeling, crew systems, and map variety have lagged behind other modes (4).
Result: Players feel naval is neglected, discouraging long‑term investment in the mode.

Impact on Queues

Fewer incentives: RP and SL rewards in naval are weaker compared to other modes (5). This makes naval less attractive for grinding, especially during events.
Gameplay issues: Cramped maps forcing chaotic 16v16 battles, slow pacing, and reliance on bots discourage retention (6).
Cycle effect: Because naval offers fewer incentives and weaker gameplay loops, fewer players stick with it, amplifying queue problems further.

Theories & Takeaways

From these observations, queue times in Naval RB are shaped by:

Nation imbalances (popular vs underplayed nations)
Squad size constraints (large squads wait longer)
Time zone and regional disparities (off‑peak queues collapse)
Events and reward structures (players prioritize tanks/air)
Mode dilution (six modes split the player base)
Naval’s niche status (small population, slower development, weaker rewards)

Together, these factors create a compounding problem: naval queues are fragile, easily disrupted, and often unrewarding compared to other modes. This makes Naval RB one of War Thunder’s most problematic areas, as highlighted by community frustration across forums, Reddit, and Steam discussions (2)(4)(6).

Sources

Final Note

Thank you for taking the time to read through this article. I hope it has provided a clear and thoughtful overview of the challenges facing Naval RB queue times.

Please take a moment to consider the points raised and vote in the poll for what you feel stands out as the major issue at hand. Your input will help highlight where the community sees the biggest problems, and hopefully guide constructive discussion toward meaningful solutions.

Kweedko · November 21, 2025, 9:02pm

What are you talking about, NRB have no nation vs nation battles they are always mixed.

NRB problems are - overall WT naval problems + blind slugfest. You can’t force players to play the mode with just slightly better SL rewards and wonky controls. Major issue of WT naval that it should be designed by different rules and approaches than ground or air.

Tubby_Vermin · November 21, 2025, 9:17pm

What I mean by “nation vs nation” isn’t specifically America vs Japan or the UK vs Germany. It’s about the way the matchmaker enforces nation blocks.

For example, if the majority of your team is made up of US ships, I believe the system should then look for another nation with an equivalent Rank/BR to match against.

That’s the point I’m making.

It’s mainly about the national composition of the squad. As the group size increases, the matchmaker has a harder time balancing nations properly, which slows down entry into matches.

Even though you sometimes end up in “everyone vs everyone” battles, which is fine, the real issue lies in how the initial queue and matchmaking logic operate behind the scenes.

Константинович7 · November 21, 2025, 9:26pm

Although a bit off-topic, in my opinion is how Gaijin keep adding top tier stuff for naval without taking a look how mid-to-low tier may offer to the game. I’m yet to see Coastal vessels with anti-ship missiles. New features like these could spice things up and bring people interested in such mechanics, maybe even introduction of higher tiers airplanes (not top tier) with proper counter to these. I’m urging to Gaijin for giving Coastal fleet a proper separated optional matchmaking.

YaSen · November 21, 2025, 9:27pm

There is no 'nation vs nation" MM in naval RB, it’s always mixed battles, but sometimes only bots from same nations are in both teams.
I’d actually love to see 'nation vs nation" MM, maybe this way Gaijin would start to balance ships.
As for major factors influencing queues I think it’s a niche theme and specific gameplay. Time of the day and regional activity also severely affect queue times, but it’s about all modes, here it’s just more clear, because of overall lower amount of players.

I doubt that naval will ever be popular, but some gameplay and map design improvements will surely make the game mode more attractive.

Tubby_Vermin · November 21, 2025, 9:31pm

Not at all, I’ve given this some thought, and I’m optimistic it will eventually arrive. It would certainly reignite interest in naval, but my concern is how long that momentum will last before players begin to lose enthusiasm.

If it follows the same pattern we see with new content, the excitement tends to fade after only a few weeks. For now, I’m keeping a close eye on the development of War Thunder Mobile, as that remains the only confirmed new direction we can realistically expect.

Tubby_Vermin · November 21, 2025, 9:41pm

There used to be strict Nation vs Nation matchmaking in both Tank RB and Plane RB. I’m not entirely sure if Naval RB ever had it in the past, but it’s definitely something I’d love to see reintroduced. The problem, however, is that the current player base simply isn’t large enough to support it.

Until the minimum player count rises, the “all nations vs all nations” format, often padded with bots seems here to stay.

That said, bringing back Nation vs Nation in naval could add a lot of identity and immersion to the mode, making battles feel more authentic, but that’s going to take a lot of time.

Hopefully, with the introduction of submarines in the next patch, assuming they’re still on the way, since nothing is certain, Gaijin will have a real opportunity to address many of the issues that Naval currently faces. My concern, however, is that if the implementation is handled poorly, it could end up making the situation worse instead of better.

I don’t want the introduction of submarines to act as a temporary “first‑aid bandage” that only covers up the deeper issues for a short while. If the underlying problems with Naval RB aren’t properly addressed, the excitement could fade within six months, and we’d find ourselves right back at square one with the same queue time frustrations and population struggles.

Submarines have the potential to bring fresh interest and variety to naval gameplay, but they need to be implemented as part of a broader, long‑term plan — not just a short‑term distraction. Without meaningful improvements to matchmaking, rewards, and overall gameplay balance, submarines risk becoming a novelty that wears off quickly, leaving the mode vulnerable to the same cycle of declining interest

YaSen · November 21, 2025, 9:45pm

I’d also add a lack of crossresearching between bluewater and coastal fleet tech trees as one of the major issues.

YaSen · November 21, 2025, 9:52pm

I’m kinda not optimistic about submarines, I believe Gaijin will just throw them into random battles without thinking about gameplay + most likely will add them into a separate tab to prolong the grind and sell premiums.
Also imo submarines are more fitted for arcade mode than realistic, since torpedo spam is one of arcade gameplay “features”.
PS I’ve played a bit of WT mobile and subs there are kinda annoying and not that fun, it’s not easy to play them, but it"s always a pain in the ass to find and kill the last one to end the battle)

Tubby_Vermin · November 21, 2025, 9:54pm

That’s a very valid point, Yasen. An approach like this could significantly improve overall research progress within the Naval Tech Trees.

It could and should be implemented in the same way as the helicopter tech tree research option currently in the game, giving players an alternative path to unlock naval content without being forced into the slow grind that discourages so many. Personally, I find Coastal gameplay more enjoyable compared to Bluewater, and a system like this would make that preference feel more rewarding rather than limiting.

You’re absolutely right that incorporating such a mechanic would also benefit queue times. In hindsight, it makes sense: more players would be encouraged to engage with naval content instead of abandoning it out of frustration, which in turn strengthens the matchmaking pool.

“If someone really didn’t enjoy a particular Bluewater ship or found it difficult to grind through, they could instead progress by playing Coastal vessels”

This would allow players to really enjoy themselves while still contributing to naval research, although, of course, they’d need to be mindful of the BR they’re using to avoid penalties from the research gained.

Expanding naval progression in this way wouldn’t just make the grind more flexible and enjoyable; it would also help sustain player interest over time and keep queues healthier across different BR ranges. In the bigger picture, this kind of system could act as a stabilizer for Naval RB, ensuring that both casual and dedicated players have viable paths forward without feeling locked into frustrating bottlenecks.

Grantaire · November 21, 2025, 10:04pm

and the mobility boosts, one of the major issues of adding submarines is the fact that they’re slow, even by the standards of the already slow naval mode
especially on larger maps (or those with island cover) this means you’re gonna be trundling along for a while, be it submerged or on the surface, in order to fire some torpedoes with a >0% chance of hitting

i dont know how they do in WT Mobile (i uninstalled after getting Hatsuzuki), but subs would definitely require a dedicated spawn that allows them to get into position before the game is over, probably somewhere between the DD and coastal spawn, maybe even on a far flank of the enemy spawn

DirtyOldCommie · November 21, 2025, 11:18pm

No, Naval RB has always been a free-for-all regarding nation match ups.

Only at the cost of sacrificing balance between teams; and the measures that would be necessary to recreate this balance (ahistorical pairing of nations in the same team, artificial buffing or nerfing of vessel parameters/guns/ammunitions) would once again result in less authenticity.

Currently it’s only the possibility of the same high-impact vessels appearing in both teams that ensures at least a semblance of balance.

YaSen · November 22, 2025, 2:57am

I remember during naval cbt or obt (in 2017) there were sessions with Italian vs British vessels)