Hmm that’s interesting too
Most frigates have Loss of Unsinkability, same as bluewater ships.
1 Like
Gaijin has spent a lot of effort in creating this model with modules etc., spent a lot of effort in the modelling of the shots and creating destruction - and now with the current dev server mechanics, (a) “loss of unsinkability mechanics” and (b) “automatic aiming system”, all these efforts are just becoming useless, because the current dev server mechanics simply mean you press mouse button while you do something besides, the computer will shoot on the competitor ship until two sections are blacked out and then its gone. It becomes largely irrelevant what hardware the competitor ship has (modules, armor scheme, etc) and totally irrelevant what skill a player has. This removes any competitive advantage that War Thunder had over competitor games and mainly makes War Thunder naval totally redundant on the market.
11 Likes
The new costal oversaturation mechanic were only for wooden hulled ships on the dev irrc
So the majority of the British tech tree
2 Likes
That’s not all the problems. Try to take the correction with the new shooting mechanics) Yes, it calculates everything automatically, provided that the speed and direction of your ship and the enemy’s ship are unchanged. What if he or you change the direction or speed a little? What if I constantly change course a little, every 5-10 seconds? What if one of you is behind cover? Now I can shoot exactly where I need to (not counting the spread of guns), but with the new mechanics I won’t be able to do that. For example, I see that the enemy stops and will soon start swimming back. I just shoot at a point behind his ship, where he will be in 10-15 seconds, taking into account that his speed will constantly increase. But with the new mechanics, I won’t be able to do this because it takes into account the current, not the future speed.
9 Likes
Yeah , so basically skill element are removed
6 Likes
I love how the devs have just ignored this. Just a massive insult to the entire playerbase.
12 Likes
Another RIP to getting more people to play naval
6 Likes
Building upon the current armor spalling controversy, I must address the glaring inconsistency in protective mechanics. While players rightfully complain about the Scharnhorst’s durability, the true nightmare manifests in angled Amagi-class battleships. Unlike Scharnhorst’s close-range dominance, a properly angled Amagi becomes nearly invincible across all engagement distances - not just through its devastating shells, but via an absurdly modeled 250mm+ internal glacis plate protecting its forward magazine. This structural armor completely ignores the spalling mechanics that cripple conventional belt armor, creating a double standard that defies both balance and physics.
Here’s the core issue: When standard belt armor suffers spalling damage from non-penetrating hits, its protective value degrades progressively. Yet Amagi’s internal glacis (and Scharnhorst’s armored citadel) remain perpetually at 100% effectiveness regardless of cumulative punishment. This creates an artificial meta where “armor quality” depends not on thickness or angling, but whether the protection is arbitrarily classified as “primary” or “internal” armor - a distinction unknown in actual warship design.
The solution isn’t removing spalling mechanics, but applying them universally. If we accept that repeated hits degrade belt armor integrity (for gameplay purposes), then the same rules MUST govern all armor types: deck plating, turtleback citadels, turret barbettes. Currently, ships relying on internal protection schemes enjoy an unfair “spalling immunity” that turns historical vulnerabilities into gameplay superpowers.
Moreover, the spalling system’s flaws are exacerbated by oversimplified compartment modeling. Take turret armor degradation - in reality, even a penetrated turret face would only lose protection around the breach. In-game? Two non-critical hits to a turret’s “primary armor zone” can magically disable its entire protective value, exposing magazines to catastrophic strikes. This binary “all-or-nothing” degradation contradicts both historical damage control practices and logical game balance.
To salvage this system, three fixes are critical:
- Universal Spalling Rules: Apply armor degradation mechanics equally to ALL armor types, including internal citadel protection and deck armor.
- Compartment Refinement: Implement multi-section armor modeling - a turret face shouldn’t lose 100% integrity from localized damage.
- Historical Consistency: If belt armor degrades from spalling, internal armor must follow actual metallurgical properties - many turtleback designs were MORE prone to cracking under repeated stress than conventional belts.
The current approach of creating “spalling-free sanctuaries” for certain ships while nerfing others through artificial mechanics only deepens balance chaos. Players don’t oppose realistic damage modeling - we revolt against selective realism that turns specific vessels into unkillable meta monsters. Until every armor plate plays by the same rules, no amount of “quick fix” mechanics will resolve the fundamental credibility crisis in naval damage models.
10 Likes
If Koln does not have it and somehow its HE gets enough kinetc effect to surpass destroyer hulls, we are so back.
I still don’t expect the 40 mms to be as destructive as before
3 Likes
Yep, haven’t seen any communication from the devs in regards to this or the equally despised Arcade aiming changes. I sincerely hope neither change makes it to the live server, truly awful. Are they purposely trying to make the naval playerbase smaller or do they wonder why it’s as unpopular as it is?
Like, increase the rewards, increase the map variety at higher BRs, fix the kill/assist credit system… easy changes that are talked about frequently when navy comes up, would be universally popular, but continues to be ignored by the devs update after update after update. Instead we get a terrible new aiming system nobody asked for and this new loss of unsinkability system, also nobody asked for. Both of which will be severely detrimental to the mode.
8 Likes
That’s the only difference in the changelog for dev that reopened today, they don’t care, they are just gonna push through
7 Likes
Ig we gotta make more of a fuss then, because after what I’ve seen naval may very well become the equivalent of an empty great hall
7 Likes
still not any feedback to our complaints or comments - and in addition they start the ground event during the naval event still lasts - one can really feel totally ignored as a naval player!
But if any high-BR ground issue is adressed there is mostly a quick response from GJ-staff!
6 Likes
Developers are still twisting the mechanics following the feedback from the community. In general, the new way of sinking ships (loss of unsinkability) should take a longer time compare to the existing way of sinking ships, such as:
- Ammo detonation: the fastest but hardest, the most skill involved
- Depletion of crew: moderately hard and will take relatively long time
Currently it turns out that the loss of unsinkability on the 1st dev didn’t work as intended, as the community had pointed out, fast firing ships can melt down large capital ship’s hull much quicker than the old way of sinking ships. Developers had acknowledged this so the numbers and values in the mechanic will be further twisted to reach the desired outcome.
8 Likes
We’ll have to see
2 Likes
They should just scrap it and focus on remodelling the watertight compartments along with keeping the old mechanic IMO
12 Likes
thx for your feedback - is there also a way that they re-think the new aiming “system” ?
1 Like
That is great to hear! Hopefully they’ll manage to accomplish this by the time the update goes live.
2 Likes
Agreed!
1 Like